Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Defence

The Secretary of State was asked—

Military Housing: Annington Homes

Gareth Bacon: What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of Annington Homes on the sale of military housing.

Jeremy Quin: Before I turn to Question 1, on behalf of the Government I wish to pay tribute to Sergeant Gavin Hillier of the Welsh Guards, who tragically died in an accident during live-firing exercises in Wales earlier this month. Sergeant Hillier’s distinguished service throughout his career was a tribute not only to his own dedication to duty but to his family and to his regiment, who continue to prepare for operations in Iraq later this year.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for his close interest in this issue, which is also actively pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and other colleagues. The Ministry of Defence longer has any ongoing military requirement for the homes, which we therefore intend to hand back to Annington, thereby helping to meet obligations under our agreements. I regret that, despite the MOD’s producing a significant package of support that we hoped might assist Annington to allow our tenants to remain in situ in many, although not all, cases, that was not a course that Annington felt able to pursue.

Gareth Bacon: I join the Minister and, I am sure, the whole House in expressing sympathy for the family and friends of Sergeant Hillier.
A number of my constituents in Biggin Hill are keen to remain in their homes; is there no way that Annington Homes can facilitate that? If not, given that we are still battling the covid pandemic, is there any way in which the Minister can provide for a longer notice period to help to provide my constituents with greater certainty at this very difficult time?

Jeremy Quin: I am pleased to say that I have some good news for my hon. Friend and his constituents. I am pleased to confirm that, mindful of the representations made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, of the fact that we are talking about packages of houses rather than single units and of the ongoing covid restrictions, we will be extending the notice period to 31 March 2022. That will mean that civilian tenants will have received more than 18 months’ notice in total. Furthermore, Annington has confirmed that it has no in-principle objection to selling the properties to local authorities or other social housing providers. I stress that any such deals would be a commercial proposition between the social housing providers and Annington, but I hope that the additional time provided may help to enable such transactions to be progressed. I shall write to my hon. Friend and other affected MPs on this subject today.

Defence Estate Optimisation Programme

Chris Matheson: What plans he has to review the defence estate optimisation programme.

Jeremy Quin: The defence estate optimisation portfolio is a 25-year multibillion-pound investment in modernising MOD basing. It provides resilience and ensures that our service personnel can train in centres of excellence alongside those beside whom they will fight. We routinely review and assess the programme in the light of evolving requirements, including the contents of the integrated review. However, the fundamental drivers of the programme are unlikely to change.

Chris Matheson: The decision to site the entire Army presence in the north-west at Weeton barracks, putting all our eggs in one basket, will damage the operational and recruitment footprint of the Army in the north-west. Were the Government to retain the Dale barracks in Chester, that would provide easy access to the southern part of the north-west, the north part of the midlands and north Wales, so will the Government please look again at the decision to sell off the Dale barracks and let them retain their historic role in the City of Chester?

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Gentleman has in the past spoken with passion about the retention of Dale barracks, and he does so again. We continue to speak to local stakeholders about alternative uses for the site, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that no disposal will take place before 2027 at the earliest. I also assure him that the armed forces will continue to be able to provide support to the north-west and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom.

Khalid Mahmood: What steps has the Ministry of Defence taken to ensure the sound financial sustainability of the defence estate, given that the National Audit Office found in 2016 that the estate would have an £8.5 billion funding shortfall over the next 30 years? A series of National Audit Office reports have shown that the defence estate faces a serious shortfall in investment. It is clear that there is a direct link between poor infrastructure and increasing risk to military effectiveness. What steps has the Minister taken to reverse this decline?

Jeremy Quin: I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that £18 million a year is spent on single-living accommodation. Additional funding has been provided through the £200 million package announced in July last year, and the frontline commands intend to invest £1.5 billion in new build and upgrade programmes to accommodation over the next 12 years. It is an issue that we are alive to and on which we focus. It is not within the top 12 reasons why people leave the Army, as stated in the surveys, but it is incredibly important. We wish to look after the welfare of all the people who serve defence. I do not wish to say anything further about future funding, because that will be covered in announcements in due course, but we take the issue very seriously.

Cyber Warfare

Antony Higginbotham: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the risks posed by technological advances in cyber warfare to the UK’s critical national infrastructure.

Mark Logan: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the risks posed by technological advances in cyber warfare to the UK’s critical national infrastructure.

Ruth Edwards: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the risks posed by technological advances in cyber warfare to the UK’s critical national infrastructure.

Ben Wallace: The threat of cyber-attack on UK interests is real. Every day, we witness malicious interference from adversary states and hostile actors. We are continually protecting our systems and have previously called out activity from Russia, China and Iran. Our defensive cyber programmes are delivering on an extensive suite of capabilities, but cyber defence is only part of our approach. A core element of broader deterrence is integrating our offensive cyber-capabilities into our military operations.

Antony Higginbotham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I particularly welcome the fact that the National Cyber Force will be based in the north-west of England. In saying that, may I urge the Secretary of State to look sympathetically at hosting it in Lancashire? We already have a really strong track record of supporting our armed forces, from the thousands of men and women who sign up from our county to manufacture the Typhoon and, hopefully, the Tempest in the future.

Ben Wallace: I certainly hear what my hon. Friend says. As another Lancashire MP, I am conscious of the good news which the Prime Minister announced that the force will be based in the north of England. Obviously, we will go through the processes of selecting where it is to be based. I think of the lessons that we learned when Bletchley Park and its successors moved to Cheltenham, as opposed to a big city. The impact that that had in levelling up the area is something on which we should all reflect. It is incredibly important that, in our whole levelling-up agenda, we focus not just on cities but on towns as well.

Lindsay Hoyle: Perhaps we could bring all Lancashire MPs together.

Mark Logan: Our Prime Minister and Secretary of State are backing the north by developing the National Cyber Force here. Some say that it should be in Manchester, but others say Lancashire. Surely Bolton is the place for it, with a foot in Greater Manchester, but our heart firmly in Lancashire.

Ben Wallace: It is tempting to ask for Bolton as well as Warrington to be returned to Lancashire following the reforms of the early 1970s. I must declare that I was once a secretary for the Friends of Real Lancashire. I think, Mr Speaker, you were probably a co-secretary with me at one stage. I hear my hon. Friend loud and clear. The strengths of these mill towns is clear. Whether it be Bolton, Wigan, Warrington, Preston, in my constituency, or Chorley, their contribution to Britain’s industrial base and the next generation, which is obviously cyber, should not be undervalued. I will certainly listen to all the arguments put forward. The National Cyber Force is a mix of GCHQ and the Ministry of Defence. We have a proud record of supporting the MOD and defence in the north, and I look forward to that continuing.

Ruth Edwards: I welcome the weekend’s announcement that a full-spectrum approach will be taken to the UK’s cyber-capability. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the integrated review will include a strategy for working with industry, great and small, so that robust cyber defence can be maintained across our entire economy?

Ben Wallace: After the Defence Command Paper is announced on Monday, a week today, the defence industrial strategy will be launched the following day, which will give us an opportunity to indicate investments not only in our more traditional industrial base, but in the new and future domains, such as digital, cyber, space and so on. This is incredibly important. Britain is one of the world leaders in both applying our cyber-technology and investing in it, and I predict that the strategy will have something to say about that.

John Healey: May I, on behalf of the official Opposition, offer my tribute to the service of Sergeant Gavin Hillier and say to his family, his friends and his comrades that our condolences are with them?
I certainly welcomed the weekend news that the integrated review will commit the UK to full-spectrum cyber, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) has just said, although I strongly feel that announcements of important Government policy such as that should be made in Parliament and not in the press. Is not the wider security lesson from cyber and other grey-zone threats that more civil and military planning, training and exercising is required? Given that some countries are well ahead of us, will the integrated review catch up with the need for full-spectrum society resilience?

Ben Wallace: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I would take issue with it on one thing, and that is about us catching up. I was the cyber-security Minister—I was the Minister of State for Security—for a considerable period of time. Britain actually led the world both in NATO, where we were the first to offer cyber-offensive capability, but also through our programmes. The national cyber-security programme spent billions on enhancing capability right across not just military, but predominantly the civil sector. The National Cyber Security Centre is a first; there are almost none in Europe.
We are one of the first to have such a centre to be able to advise business, private individuals and the Government how to keep themselves strong and secure. There is always more to do and there are lessons to be learned around the world, but Britain has a lot of innovation and strengths in cyber-security. It is a dangerous world out there in cyber. I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one of the ways to deliver this is to ensure that we constantly work with our friends and allies.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go to another expert—Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while the cyber-threat to critical national infrastructure can paralyse a society that is then subject to attack by more conventional means, we also have to maintain the methods and equipment to counter-attack anything involving conventional military force? Is he satisfied that the integrated review, while recognising the role of cyber, also recognises the continuing role of conventional defence?

Ben Wallace: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point; we absolutely recognise that. The important thing about the Command Paper and the integrated review is learning the lessons of today. The lesson that we learned from Syria was that when we tackle Daesh, we tackle its cyber-offence and cyber-campaign in tandem with the military campaign that we used to take apart its leadership and the evil tasks that it was setting out to cause attacks. It is absolutely the case that there cannot be one without the other, but we should also recognise that the growing vulnerability of our forces and civil society to cyber as we become more dependent on cyber means that we have to take a very strong lead in defending against that.

Veterans Overseas

Andrew Gwynne: What steps his Department is taking to support the welfare of UK veterans overseas.

Johnny Mercer: Veterans can access the same services provided by the Ministry of Defence, no matter where in the world they live.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Minister for that answer, because the covenant rightly offers to veterans provisions in areas such as education and family wellbeing, having a home, starting a new career, access to healthcare, financial assistance and discounted services. What I would like to know, however, is what the Ministry is doing to ensure that the undertakings that we give as a nation are actually delivered for veterans who now live overseas. Is there a specific budget for this vital work to ensure that those veterans are accessing the services that they qualify for?

Johnny Mercer: There is not a carve-out in the budget for veterans who live overseas, but we are committed to ensuring that the armed forces covenant works equally for them as it does in this country. We are introducing the Armed Forces Bill in the coming months to legislate for the first time to ensure that discharge of duties cannot result in disadvantage from local authorities in health, housing and education. I look forward to the hon. Member supporting the Bill.

Armed Forces Personnel

Alan Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the level of satisfaction among armed forces personnel with military (a) housing and (b) salaries.

Johnny Mercer: Defence regularly monitors several metrics to gauge service personnel satisfaction levels, including for accommodation and pay, via the armed forces continuous attitude survey.

Alan Brown: The Army has been instrumental in the fight against covid, from assisting with logistics to being directly involved in testing the vaccination programmes; yet the reward for army personnel is a pay freeze at a time when low pay is one of the factors that causes people to leave the armed forces, as Government studies should show. I ask the Minister, why was Dominic Cummings awarded a huge pay rise, yet armed forces personnel are not deemed worthy of one?

Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, I do not think you are going to respond to that point.

Johnny Mercer: No; I do not have responsibility for the Prime Minister’s advisers, clearly. On satisfaction around pay, I am clear that pay is one of the reasons that people stay in the military. If the hon. Member looks forward to the integrated review, we will be looking to announce a direction of travel on this matter in due course.

Stewart McDonald: On behalf of the Scottish National party, I send our condolences to Sergeant Hillier’s family.
The issue of pay rises and satisfaction more generally has been a bone of contention in the House for many years. The numbers speak for themselves; four in 10 serving personnel do not think that the pay they receive reflects the work they do. Why?

Johnny Mercer: The crushing irony of our people who work in Scotland having to pay more in tax and therefore take home less pay and the hon. Gentleman raising this point is not lost on those who serve. Pay is a one of a number of factors that people speak about when the armed forces continuous attitude survey comes through. It is by no means the primary factor. We are constantly reviewing it and I am comfortable that we offer a world-class package to our people.

Stewart McDonald: Yet again, the Minister is rather poorly briefed. The lowest-paid members of the armed forces in Scotland actually pay less in tax. If he wants to talk exemptions, that is a power that lies in the Treasury; it is not a tax power that lies with the Scottish Government. But let me press him on this: when the integrated review is published tomorrow, will it contain something—anything at all—to reverse the trend on satisfaction, and will he apologise to the armed forces, who have had a kick in the teeth with their pay rise being paused, given everything they have done for everyone over the covid crisis?

Johnny Mercer: Let me be clear: this will be the first strategic review to have a specific address to our people. They are our finest asset. They are rewarded not only financially but through the choice of career on offer to them. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read that when it comes out and I am more than happy to have a conversation with him after that.

Support for Veterans

Rosie Cooper: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of military charities on improving support for veterans throughout the UK.

Kerry McCarthy: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of military charities on improving support for veterans throughout the UK.

Gill Furniss: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of military charities on improving support for veterans throughout the UK.

Johnny Mercer: The Office for Veterans’ Affairs champions our veterans’ mental health and wellbeing needs at the heart of Government. This month, NHS England launched Operation Courage, bringing together three NHS England veterans’ mental health services with a single point of access. Op Courage is truly a game changer for veterans in the UK, including in the north-east.

Rosie Cooper: The Royal British Legion has said that the current extortionate charges to Commonwealth veterans to settle in the UK are unfair and should end. We completely agree, so what is the Minister doing to end this unjust treatment of those who have risked their lives for our country?

Johnny Mercer: Let me be absolutely clear: that is a policy that started under the previous Government. This is the first Government who have promised a pathway to residency for those who serve. We will deliver that. We are looking to consult in the coming months. This has been a long-term injustice for our foreign and Commonwealth service personnel and under this Government we are going to correct it.

Kerry McCarthy: There seem to be some really good schemes that have been awarded funding under the Positive Pathways programme, but what is the Minister doing to ensure that veterans know about these schemes, and how can we be sure that they are not just a short-term engagement with veterans but really offer the seamless route of care and support that is talked about in the documentation?

Johnny Mercer: One of my biggest challenges in this role is not the fact that there are not pathways of care; it is getting people to understand that and to really be able to access fantastic, world-class healthcare and career advice and transition for a seamless progress from the military into civilian life. It is an ongoing effort and I welcome the hon. Lady’s efforts to help me with that.

Gill Furniss: The extra £10 million allocated in the Budget to supporting veterans’ mental health is a welcome step that the Opposition have been calling for. However, there is still a large disparity between physical and mental health support, and this extra money works out just at an extra £4 per veteran. Covid-19 has impacted heavily on veterans’ charities’ ability to raise funds and conduct their vital work. Will the Minister therefore commit to protecting our protectors and ensure that the funding is there for veterans to get the support that they need?

Johnny Mercer: The £10 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget was another important commitment, but we have also seen a greater commitment in the past few weeks with the launch of Operation Courage. It is the first integrated, single front-door approach to mental healthcare in our NHS for our veterans. It truly is a game-changer, and I urge veterans up and down the country to make sure that they are fully aware of what it offers. I will be going from this place to ensure that every GP practice and every NHS trust in the UK is part of that programme to ensure we do our duty by those who serve.

Stephen Morgan: Five years ago, the Government announced that veterans could access the state-of-the-art £300 million Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, but it has seen just 22 people in the past three years. What steps will the Minister be taking to widen veteran access to these facilities and make a meaningful difference to the day-to-day lives of those who have sustained serious injuries during their service?

Johnny Mercer: I have commissioned a review into veterans’ access to the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre. It is an important project. To be clear, in its original specification, it was a national rehab centre, but I recognise that there are opportunities for veterans to access world-class healthcare there. I have asked the veterans community and others to go away, do a piece of work and understand the ask. We will then address that with the DNRC, and I hope we can find a path through the middle to ensure we are looking after those who have served.

Covid-19: NHS Support

Elliot Colburn: What support his Department has provided to the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak.

Laura Trott: What support his Department has provided to the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak.

Neil Hudson: What support his Department has provided to the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak.

Andrea Jenkyns: What support his Department has provided to the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak.

Steve Brine: What support his Department has provided to the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak.

James Heappey: The work of our armed forces in supporting the covid response is popular around the country and popular in Parliament, too. Defence has supported the NHS through the construction of Nightingale hospitals, PPE distribution, planning and logistical support, scientific advice, testing and vaccine delivery. Currently, the Ministry of Defence is providing 199 medical personnel to regional NHS trusts, and 321 general duties personnel are providing a range of support tasks, including support to the ambulance services. Some 1,600 defence medical professionals are also embedded in the national health service.

Elliot Colburn: I would like to pay tribute to the armed forces personnel in Carshalton and Wallington for all they have done to help tackle coronavirus. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the hundreds of defence personnel across London who have been seconded to hospitals throughout the duration of the pandemic, fulfilling medical and general roles? Will he also outline the plans the MOD has for continuing that offer of support in the coming months?

James Heappey: I certainly join my hon. Friend, as I hope will the rest of the House, in thanking defence personnel for supporting the NHS across London over the past year. Those thanks should also recognise the NHS and frontline workers whom it has been our great privilege to work alongside at the strategic level here in Whitehall, all the way down to those in wards and in the back of ambulances across the country throughout the pandemic.
Besides MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—support for specific tasks, Defence has an enduring presence within the NHS for training and personnel placements. Work is being done to expand that for future opportunities, given the experience of our people working alongside the brilliant NHS clinicians throughout the pandemic.

Laura Trott: Will the Minister join me in thanking the military personnel who set up the asymptomatic testing sites in Sevenoaks and Swanley? The 35 Engineer Regiment managed the whole process swiftly and efficiently, and has made it as pleasant as possible to visit. They deserve to be recognised.

James Heappey: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the fabulous work of the 35 Engineer Regiment and the Kent resilience unit, which supported Kent County Council to deliver its community testing programme and to establish the Sevenoaks asymptomatic testing site. Armed forces personnel have been working tirelessly across the United Kingdom to help tackle this pandemic, and I know she is not alone in wanting to pass her thanks on to all those who have done such amazing work.

Neil Hudson: In times of crisis, such as foot and mouth disease 20 years ago, flooding catastrophes and now the coronavirus pandemic, the armed forces have been deployed effectively to keep us safe by working closely with the emergency services, the NHS and local authorities. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the thousands of UK armed forces personnel who, aside from keeping us safe, are ready to be deployed in national times of crisis and have bolstered the vaccine effort, supported hospitals, assisted with covid testing and much more?

James Heappey: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I wholeheartedly join him in recognising the consistency and excellence of the support that the armed forces have provided to the United Kingdom both in the past and throughout the covid-19 pandemic. It is worth mentioning that, throughout times like this, they are not just working on homeland resilience but continue with the many jobs they have to do overseas to keep countries safe. It is an extraordinary effort, and it is right that they should be recognised in this way in the House.

Steve Brine: Will the Minister join me in thanking the 35 military personnel who continue to support the frontline team at South Central ambulance service, which serves my constituents? Will he confirm that the MOD will continue to be there by their side as we move towards the end of all national restrictions on 21 June?

James Heappey: I, of course, join my hon. Friend in thanking and acknowledging the fine work of the armed forces personnel supporting the South Central ambulance service, as well as those who have been supporting ambulance services in the north-west, London and Wales. Supporting the covid-19 pandemic response remains Defence’s main priority, and I can confirm that Defence will continue to provide support while our assistance is requested and the requirement endures.

Andrea Jenkyns: Last summer, I met members of our armed forces in my constituency of Morley and Outwood who were undertaking tests for people who may have covid. These brave men and women are British heroes, and throughout the pandemic, they have done everything possible to keep the people of our great nation safe. Will the Minister detail the steps that are being taken to strengthen support services for our armed forces and their families so that we can show them the same support that they have shown us?

James Heappey: My hon. Friend is right to notice just how extraordinary the work of our armed forces has been. They have accepted great risk during the pandemic in doing the things we have asked them to do, which will have been of some concern for their families. While they have often been deployed at short notice, we have tried to make sure that the welfare provisions for them are as good as they can be. We also recognise the demands of service life and the impact that they can have on the lives and careers of family members. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has done excellent work on the armed forces families’ strategy and action plan, and we are looking to develop those ideas fully over the next few months.

Covid-19: Vaccine Roll-out

Geraint Davies: What recent steps he has taken to help ensure that military personnel are available to assist with the covid-19 vaccine roll-out.

James Heappey: We have established a support package of 14,400 personnel who are on stand-by to support covid-19 and winter resilience tasks. Those personnel have a range of diverse capabilities, including planning, logistical and medical. Approximately 700 personnel are currently deployed in support of the covid-19 vaccine roll-out.

Geraint Davies: I would like to give my massive thanks to all the military and defence personnel who have done such a fantastic job in establishing our field hospitals and in the vaccination programme; they certainly deserve a pay rise. Of the 250 teams of vaccinators promised in December, how many have now been deployed, and how many in Wales?

James Heappey: Forty two of the 252 available vaccination teams are now deployed as part of the vaccine quick response force. In Wales, 34 medical personnel are directly supporting the administering of vaccines, with approximately 150 personnel helping to co-ordinate and operate vaccine centres.

Army Personnel

Steven Bonnar: What recent estimate he has made of the number of personnel serving in the Army.

James Heappey: The number of personnel currently serving in the Army as full-time trade trained strength is 76,350. That is supported by 26,920 Army reserves.

Steven Bonnar: I thank the Minister for that answer. For years, the Ministry of Defence has staggered from one recruitment crisis to another as it has struggled and failed to meet its personnel targets, including the broken promise of 12,500 personnel to be based in Scotland by 2020. The Government are now set to cut a further 10,000 soldiers. Can the Minister confirm whether any regiments are due to be disbanded completely and whether these further cuts will pertain to Scotland, which was promised thousands more personnel, not thousands less?

James Heappey: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to pre-empt the announcement next week. He will have heard my colleagues say already that these are things he just has to wait seven days more to understand.

Mental Health Support for Veterans

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to improve mental health support for veterans in the (a) north-east and (b) UK.

Johnny Mercer: The Office for Veterans’ Affairs champions our veterans’ mental health and wellbeing needs at the heart of Government. This month, we launched Op Courage, bringing together three NHS England veterans’ mental health services with a single point of access, something we promised to do when we were established 18 months ago.

Chi Onwurah: But waiting times for face-to-face appointments under the veterans’ transition, intervention and liaison mental health service was 37 days in 2020 against the Government’s own target of 14. North-east charities, such as Forward Assist and Anxious Minds in Newcastle, do fantastic work to support veterans in civilian life, but they have been overwhelmed with demand. Does the Minister agree that care for the mental wellbeing of our armed forces veterans must begin before they leave the armed forces, and what is he doing to ensure that they are better supported in that transition to civilian life?

Johnny Mercer: I do not recognise the waiting times the hon. Member relays to me, but I am happy to write to her about what I understand them to be. Let me be really clear that with the funding that has gone into veterans’ mental health—£16 million written into the long-term plan for the NHS, rising to £20 million by 2022-23—I am absolutely determined that world-class veterans’ mental health care will be available in this country. Op Courage, which we launched last week, is the start of that, and we will continue with that progress.

Sharon Hodgson: Last week, we saw Meghan Markle speaking out about how her pleas for support for her mental health crisis were dismissed. While obviously the military is a very different institution, military charities continue to see an increase in demand for mental health support, although people do still struggle to speak out. What steps is the Minister taking to help reduce the stigma around mental health in the military and veteran community?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for all the championing she does in this area. Mental health has come on in leaps and bounds, particularly in the last five to 10 years. Actually, this year we are introducing mandatory mental health and fitness training for our armed forces personnel, which they will undergo every year. We are fundamentally changing our approach to mental health, fundamentally making it easier for people to come forward. It does take courage, but I encourage all those who have mental health concerns to speak up. There is help available, and they can get better.

Submarine Dismantling Programme

Douglas Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the (a) Submarine Delivery Agency and (b) Office for Nuclear Regulation on the progress of the submarine dismantling programme.

Jeremy Quin: Ministers have regular discussions with the Submarine Delivery Agency on the progress of the submarine dismantling project and the MOD holds regular discussions with the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is satisfied with the safety performance at Rosyth dockyard.

Douglas Chapman: I thank the Minister for his response. Any delay in the submarine dismantling programme is of grave concern to my Dunfermline and West Fife constituency, where we accommodate many of these redundant submarines. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s commitment to endorse the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in 2019 still holds, or will his Department continue to move the goalposts to guarantee that the removal of these boats will remain a taxpayers’ nightmare forever?

Jeremy Quin: I believe I am right in saying that we have now adopted all the recommendations of the PAC report, and we remain committed to continuing to decommission these boats in a safe and swift way. There were, and I have written to the hon. Gentleman, some small delays due to covid, but they were minimal, and we are continuing with the programme and are committed to continuing to do so.

Service Justice System

Sarah Dines: What steps his Department is taking to help improve the service justice system.

Johnny Mercer: The Armed Forces Bill includes measures to reform the service justice system. This includes the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints   Commissioner. In addition, we have commissioned an independent review of policing and prosecutorial processes for dealing with serious criminal offending overseas.

Sarah Dines: As my hon. Friend knows, there are many service personnel and veterans in Derbyshire Dales, and they expect to see real justice in the service justice system. Can my hon. Friend say what else, other than what is in the Armed Forces Bill, is going to be brought forward to protect justice in the system?

Johnny Mercer: There is a suite of measures in the Armed Forces Bill. The most significant thing we are introducing is a serious crime unit, which will ensure that our investigators are skilled, capable, and have all the tools they need to conduct investigations of a standard that will withstand ECHR compliance tests and such things. We totally understand the need to address not only that issue but the legal side of this matter through the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. We are determined for uniform to be no hiding place for those who commit offences, and as we go forward, we will improve the standard of those investigations. These provisions will be a serious step towards doing that.

Service Medal Awards

Catherine McKinnell: On what basis the Advisory Military Sub-Committee decided not to recommend service medal awards to British nuclear test veterans.

Johnny Mercer: The review by the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee into medallic recognition for those who participated in the UK’s nuclear test programme concluded that it did not meet the level of risk and rigour required for the reward of a campaigning medal or class. That independent process operates to strict criteria, and the outcome in no way diminishes the contribution of veterans. The Government remain grateful to all who participated.

Catherine McKinnell: Our nuclear test veterans were sent to the south Pacific in the 1950s at great risk to themselves. They have heard decades of warm rhetoric about their crucial role in the country’s defence during the cold war and beyond, but they lack formal recognition. Recently, a constituent wrote to me:
“My dad was a veteran who was present at two of the grapple tests on Christmas Island in the 1950s. Sadly, my dad is no longer with us and never got round to seeing the Government award a medal or compensation to the veterans.”
Does the Minister share my concern that no more nuclear test veterans such as my constituent’s father should pass away with their contribution left unrecognised?

Johnny Mercer: Their contributions are not unrecognised. We work hard to ensure a programme of support for those who have become ill as a result of their exposure to nuclear tests. This is a consistent process that we are always refining, and the review I undertook eight months ago tightened up that support. The medallic system is outwith the control of Ministers and always has been. It is rightly in that position, but I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of nuclear test veterans.

Review of Security, Defence, Development  and Foreign Policy

James Daly: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that armed forces personnel are at the heart of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.

Ben Wallace: Our people are our finest asset, and the Government will continue to invest in our extraordinary armed forces personnel. We are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to have the world-class armed forces it deserves. I will publish further details of my plans on 22 March.

James Daly: Will my right hon. Friend outline what consultation has been undertaken with our military personnel ahead of the policy changes that will be announced as part of the integrated review and defence Command Paper?

Ben Wallace: From the very beginning of the integrated review and defence reform process, we have engaged with the chiefs and many members of the armed forces across all services. We have been informed throughout that process by defence intelligence and other intelligence products, to ensure that our plans match the threat that we face, as well as the capabilities that we should give to the men and women of our armed forces.

Commonwealth Veterans

Dan Jarvis: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the immigration status of Commonwealth-born veterans.

Ben Wallace: We greatly value everyone who serves in our armed forces, wherever they come from, for their contribution to the security of our nation. Non-UK personnel can settle in the United Kingdom after four years’ service, and I am pleased to confirm that we are extending the time before discharge so that applicants can be submitted from 10 to 18 weeks before they leave. In addition, an imminent consultation is due, and I urge Members to contribute to that and to try to solve the current ongoing issues regarding Commonwealth veterans.

Dan Jarvis: Pay up or pack up: that is the shameful choice presented to our Commonwealth servicemen and women. I am aware of the strength of feeling that the Secretary of State has on this issue. Will he confirm when we will see the public consultation? Will the reforms promised apply to veterans and families, as well as to serving personnel?

Ben Wallace: First, may I place on record my apology to the hon. Gentleman for the delay in responding to his correspondence? That should not have happened and I apologise for it. The consultation is imminent, and we will schedule it in as soon as possible. Once it has been published, I will be happy to sit down with as many Members as possible to discuss their views on what we are proposing and on whether the measures should go further. We can take it from that point. I understand  what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am keen that whatever we do is fair for all veterans, whether Gurkhas, or serving UK national or Commonwealth personnel. We must ensure equity, but at the same time I understand the strength of feeling in the House. Those who contribute should be recognised.

Military Aid to Civilian Authorities

Stuart Anderson: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the armed forces’ capacity to deliver military aid to civilian authorities operations.

James Heappey: Defence remains able to assist other Departments where appropriate and, through prudent planning, has continued to provide support when required throughout the pandemic. Mitigation measures such as testing of key personnel and adaptation of working practices have ensured that Defence has maintained both its UK operational and contingent readiness, as well as being able to generate the forces we require for our commitments overseas.

Stuart Anderson: As a proud veteran, I am delighted to see what our great armed forces have done throughout this pandemic. They continue to go over and above. Will my hon. Friend go over and above in honouring our armed forces by seeing that they have everything they need in the integrated review to stand proud on the world stage?

James Heappey: I look forward to the announcement later in the week and next Monday, but I have a strong suspicion that it will be jam-packed full of opportunities for our men and women to serve at home and around the world in really fulfilling roles that keep our country safer for the future.

Topical Questions

Debbie Abrahams: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Ben Wallace: Included in my responsibilities is the duty to uphold the duty of care to our workforce. We were all appalled by the reporting we saw of the incident involving members of the RAF Regiment at the weekend. The RAF police are investigating the incident and the victims have been offered our full support. The Chief of the Air Staff and I had a discussion about the incident over the weekend and he has, with my support, acted quickly. He has removed officers from the immediate chain of command without prejudice pending the findings of the police investigation, and the unit involved, the Support Weapons Flight, will be disbanded with immediate effect. Bullying, harassment and discrimination has no place in our armed forces. I will not tolerate it and nor will the Chief of the Air Staff.

Debbie Abrahams: What proportion of servicemen and women are currently deployed in UN peacekeeping, what was it last year and how is it set to change over the next three years?

Ben Wallace: I can write to the hon. Lady with the exact proportions. All I can say is that there has been a significant increase recently, with the deployment to Mali of our forces to assist in the United Nations mission there. We also have a number of forces deployed in Somalia, assisting that fragile state in trying to come to terms with the consequences of the civil war. The Government are determined to continue to contribute to UN missions wherever we can, lending military support—not necessarily operational support, but in the logistics, the enabling and humanitarian aid.

Tobias Ellwood: Russia is rearming, Daesh is regrouping and China is nudging us out of military and trade partnerships across Africa, yet we are about to witness a shocking reduction in our conventional hard power and full-spectrum capabilities. That is overshadowed by the fanfare of announcements promoting a tilt towards niche capabilities, including electronic warfare and autonomous platforms. Yes, we must adapt to new threats, but that does not mean that the old threats have disappeared. Severe cuts to our infantry regiments, main battle tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and Hercules C-130s will worry our closest allies and delight our competitors. Regarding the F-35 jets, does the Secretary of State agree that cutting back our order from 138 to 48 will mean that, if required, we could never unilaterally operate both carriers in strike mode simultaneously?

Ben Wallace: I have listened to my right hon. Friend’s consistent messaging over the last few months. I think the thing that we can all agree with is that, as he said at the weekend,
“we must modernise—but first let’s agree the threat—& then design the right defence posture.”
That is exactly what we have been doing. Obviously, in the Ministry of Defence, we have made sure that we have been doing that in conjunction with our serving personnel, our allies and the threats. I think playing by the Ladybird book of defence design is not the way to progress.

John Healey: Why are Britain’s full-time armed forces still 10,000 short of the numbers that the last defence review, in 2015, said were needed to meet the threats and keep the country safe, which the Defence Secretary’s Government pledged to meet?

Ben Wallace: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman. We are 6,000 under. The strength is 76,500 from the 82,000 that was pledged. He will of course know—it is well documented—that under the previous coalition Government and Conservative Government there was not a satisfactory outcome by the recruiting process. That has now been fixed. Until the covid break, we were on target to fulfil the pipeline and target for that recruiting. We have to make sure we continue to invest in that. That is why we are investing in people. We will continue to invest throughout the process and next week there will be announcements that put people at the heart of our defence review.

John Healey: The Secretary of State may want to check the numbers. I was talking about the full-time armed forces, not the full-time Army numbers. He has rightly said before that our forces personnel will go to war alongside robots in the future, but robots do not  seize and hold vital ground from the enemy. They do not keep the peace or rebuild broken societies, and they do not give covid jabs. Size matters and no Government can secure the nations with under-strength armed forces. Is it not the truth that over the past decade we have seen our armed forces run down—numbers down, pay down, morale down—and that all the indication from stories ahead of tomorrow’s integrated review is that Ministers are set to make the same mistakes as in the last reviews, with our servicemen and women paying the price for cuts and bad defence budgeting?

Ben Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that for the past three or four decades we have had that characteristic, where Government after Government have been over-ambitious and underfunded the defence policy. His Government did it. The Governments before mine have done the same things. I only have to point him, as I do during at every defence questions, to the National Audit Office report into the processes of his Government in 2010 and our previous Governments to show that the biggest problem is that we have been promising soldiers, men and women of the armed forces equipment they never got, or numbers gains when just tying them up alongside. That is not the way to confront an enemy. The way to confront the enemy is to invest in the people, give them the right equipment to take on the threat, and make sure they are active, busy and forward. As a soldier, being active, busy and forward is what keeps you engaged and in there.

Ruth Edwards: A cyber-security conference is one of the only places on earth where women never have to queue for the loo. That is because there are so few of us in the industry—approximately 10% when I left in 2019. Given that cyber-security is vital to our nation’s defence and that there is a global talent shortage, how will the Government work with industry to encourage more women into cyber-security and to address the skills gap?

Ben Wallace: I am sorry that that has been my hon. Friend’s experience. I think in the public sector it is cyber-security. In the intelligence services I worked with when I was Security Minister and in key parts of the armed forces, such as the Signal Regiment, there are higher proportions of women. I think that is something on which the state can lead. That is why the state signed up and sponsored the CyberFirst campaign, designed to stimulate among girls at school an interest in cyber and to invest in them. Hopefully, we are seeing an increase in that. But she can rest assured that with the next stage of the defence review she will see us making sure that, loud and clear, the sign “women are welcome” will be put above the door.

Emma Hardy: As I mentioned at the previous defence questions, workers at RAF Leeming have been striking since January over a £5,000 pay disparity. Just last week, Faslane and Coulport workers walked out over low wages and the looming break-up of their single bargaining unit. What action can the Minister take to stop these loyal staff being exploited?

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Lady refers to two bits of potential industrial action. I have written to her about RAF Leeming in the  last month. Obviously, it is a source of concern when employers and employees fall out, but I am not going to get into discussions on the specific action involved. We urge all those involved to come to an agreement.

Gareth Davies: I very much welcome the Government’s efforts to forge new trade links with India. However, given we share many common security threats and the fact that it is a key strategic ally in the Indo-Pacific region, can my hon. Friend outline what efforts are being made to better strengthen our defence relationship with India?

James Heappey: The UK Government are committed to working with the Government of India and increasing our efforts to combat shared threats. In particular, the UK is focused on increasing bilateral maritime co-operation in the Indian ocean and on ensuring a closer defence industrial relationship in line with Prime Minister Modi’s made in India policy. We are also committed to uplifting our defence education and training relationship to enable us to work together more effectively. I am certain that my hon. Friend and our friends in India will be hugely excited by what may follow in the integrated review.

Peter Grant: The MOD itself estimates that its equipment plan is underfunded by about £8.3 billion in its first five years. We also know, for example, that the MOD will need to spend perhaps billions of pounds to bring its single-person living accommodation up to even a basic minimum tolerable standard. Will the Minister tell us how much of the additional money that the Prime Minister trumpeted at the spending review in November will be genuinely new money and how much of it will be swallowed up to fill these and other existing black holes in the defence budget?

Jeremy Quin: I am not going to prejudge in advance of the announcements that are going to be made. They will all be made in the next eight days or so. The hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself, but I assure him that we have gone through the numbers very closely and there is a lot of new money coming into defence—a £24 billion increase in the amount of money being spent on defence. We can see an awful lot of benefit coming through to our armed forces and our personnel.

Chris Loder: With the Government’s integrated review due to be published imminently, potential investment in programmes such as Tempest would clearly align with the Government’s agenda for skills, development and social value. The defence sector employs unique, high-end design and manufacturing capabilities across the UK, with significant export potential, so how will constituents benefit from this?

Jeremy Quin: Many constituencies and many constituents will benefit from it. I know my hon. Friend is a fierce advocate for Leonardo helicopters in his part of the world. In that particular case, we really value our strategic partnership arrangements and recognise the contribution that they make to UK prosperity. We will shortly be publishing the findings of our review into the defence and security industrial strategy, setting out our strategic approach to a number of sectors.

Jamie Stone: Some days ago, I read with great interest a piece in saying that the intention is to deploy Royal Navy warships to the high north to safeguard trade routes via the Arctic. Given the limited range of conventionally powered warships, is there a case for relocating warships further north within the United Kingdom?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. First and foremost, I can give him some reassurance that not only are we continuing to move our submarines from the south to the north to invest in basing in Scotland—for submarine basing, and submarines pose just as lethal a threat to our adversaries as any surface fleet—but we continue to patrol the high north, recently in the Barents sea, and earlier in the year when we returned for the first time since the cold war, joining NATO allies to make sure that those vital trade routes are invested in. From my point of view, the key place for a ship is at sea doing its job on operations. The bases are very important, but let us remember that the way we protect our coast is by being out at sea.

Mary Robinson: The International Criminal Court’s announcement that it is opening an investigation into Israel sets a precedent, potentially opening the door for non-state actors in Afghanistan or Iraq to initiate proceedings against our armed forces. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support Israel against this probe and to ensure that democratic states will not be prevented from combating terrorist threats?

James Heappey: My hon. Friend is right to ask about the actions of the ICC. We of course respect the independence of the ICC, but we expect it to exercise due prosecutorial and judicial discipline. We continue to engage with the ICC and international partners to make those points.

Cat Smith: The Veterans Minister will recall that in defence questions in November, I raised the concerns that I have about veterans’ mental health. Since then, I have been made aware that demand for services has increased 74% during lockdown. Does he think that the funding that goes into veterans’ mental health is enough, and because waiting times have continued to be longer for veterans, what more can we do to support veterans with mental health difficulties?

Johnny Mercer: Under Op Courage, the new NHS pathway for all veterans’ mental health, there is an ability to monitor waiting times in almost real-time data, and I am absolutely committed to meeting those targets. There is significant investment going into it. I will always argue for more investment in something that has historically been underinvested in for so long. But I am confident that, as we stand here today, we have a world-class offering of mental health provision for our veterans, and it is incumbent on all of us to get that cohort to understand where that help is, to understand what the care pathways are and to have hope, because they can get better and they will be looked after.

David Evennett: How have the emerging military technologies that are being used in the ongoing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh impacted my right hon. Friend’s Department’s assessment of threat, ahead of the integrated review?

Ben Wallace: The recent conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrated with brutal clarity the devastating impact of unmanned aerial vehicles, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and traditional artillery when combined to produce a lethal cocktail of precision, lethality and range. The destruction of Armenian forces throughout the battlefield, not just on the frontline, demonstrated the vulnerability even of armoured forces on the modern battlefield. This includes our own forces, which is not something that, as Defence Secretary, I am willing to ignore any further. I will set out further details in the future review.

Janet Daby: The Secretary of State will be well aware of the historic failure of the Government to repay the £400 million International Military Services debt to Iran. My constituent Anoosheh Ashoori is just one of the dual nationals being held hostage in Iran as diplomatic leverage. There is no doubt that this debt has caused their detainment; officials in Iran have confirmed that. What action is the Secretary of State, along with colleagues in the Foreign Office, going to take to resolve this shameful situation with urgency?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Member will know that I held a debate in the House as a Back-Bencher about that very debt and the need and determination to repay it, as it is a stain on Britain’s honour from when we dealt with this in the 1970s. It is definitely the intention that we comply with any court orders that are made against us, and we continue to do so, but we have to ensure that whatever we do is in line with both this law and the sanctions law that we have to observe as well.

Mark Menzies: The BAE Systems site at Warton in my constituency employs more than 6,000 people, serving as a source of high-skilled employment and playing a critical role in UK defence capability. With the Team Tempest project reaching its critical phase, does my hon. Friend agree that the project must be at the heart of the Government’s defence plans and must be provided with the backing it needs to give it certainty for the future?

Jeremy Quin: Warton plays a key role in the UK’s combat air sector and Tempest is the future of that sector, with over 1,800 highly skilled engineers already involved in the programme, going up to 2,500 next year. As the Prime Minister has made clear, this Government are committed to investing in the future of our combat air strategy.

Catherine McKinnell: The north-east sends a higher proportion of people into the armed forces than any other region, but it also has historically high levels of unemployment. Service charities are concerned that the scope of the Armed Forces Bill is too narrow and that it does not address specific challenges such as employment. Given the challenges of the transition from service to civilian life,  will the Government commit to ensuring that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed for north-east veterans?

Johnny Mercer: The Armed Forces Bill is an important opportunity to enshrine the armed forces covenant. I understand that for some it goes too far and for some it does not go far enough. I say to the hon. Member that it is the start of the process and the start of a conversation to ensure that the experience of being a veteran is levelled up across this country, and I look forward to working with her in the years ahead.

James Gray: The hundred or so families at Lyneham in my constituency who are facing eviction from Annington homes will very much welcome the Minister’s remark a moment ago that he is to extend the eviction notice period until next March. They will also be glad that there are to be negotiations with Wiltshire County Council about this, but is the Minister aware of the further complication that those homes get their utilities from within the base? Annington Homes has so far said that that would preclude them from being sold. Will he instruct officials to look into what can be done about that particular circumstance?

Jeremy Quin: I hope we may have found a technical solution that would enable base-dependent sites to be dealt with to allow sales to social housing providers if the parties agree. Our advice is that the transfer of supply can generally be effected relatively rapidly, and we are willing to share this advice with Annington, which will need to be satisfied that it can perform connections to mains networks safely and efficiently with tenants in situ.

Julian Lewis: It should be possible to restore the pensions of the small cohort of war widows who lost them on remarriage or cohabitation without setting a precedent that would open the floodgates in respect of other cohorts, so what progress is the Department making in addressing this debt of honour?

Johnny Mercer: I am aligned with my right hon. Friend’s views. The Secretary of State has worked tirelessly on this issue to try to correct the historic injustice of war widows’ pensions. We continue to examine all possibilities, including the ex gratia scheme and all the other ideas that my right hon. Friend has come up with in his tireless campaigning. We will arrive at a solution. Like I said, the Secretary of State is committed to resolving it, and we will get there in the end.

Kevan Jones: The Government maintain that every F-35 built has 15% UK content, but I understand that the MOD’s definition of “content” includes work carried out for UK companies by US subsidiaries. Will the Minister therefore publish how he defines UK content in the programme, so that I can decide what is done in the UK and what is done in the US?

Jeremy Quin: I have received a large number of parliamentary questions from the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe that I have answered that question as part of them. If not, I will make certain that it is clear to him.  It is 15% by value, and we are proud of the contribution that is being made by UK manufacturing to the F-35. I will make certain that that is covered again.

John Healey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code is clear that
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
I know that you believe this principle to be fundamental to the proper role of Parliament and the accountability of Ministers. We look forward to the Prime Minister’s statement tomorrow on the integrated review, yet over the last week there have been a series of detailed media briefings about decisions in that integrated review. With the Defence Secretary in his place, can you offer guidance to the House, ahead of the follow-up Command Paper on Monday and the defence industrial strategy on Tuesday, so that we do not have the same serious disregard of the ministerial code and disrespect for Parliament?

Tobias Ellwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have indeed seen a steady drumbeat of media stories promoting radical changes to our defence posture, but the Defence Committee has not received any of those briefings, despite frequent departmental requests. What troubles me the most is the MOD’s decision to share with the media the desire to increase our nuclear stockpile with the purchase of 200 W93 US-made warheads. I am a firm supporter of  continuous at-sea deterrence, but changes to our non-proliferation policy deserve proper oversight in this House and should not be used a sweetener to overshadow dramatic cuts to our conventional defence posture. May I ask for your guidance on how we can encourage the MOD to brief the Defence Committee—perhaps in the Ladybird book form that the Defence Secretary likes to promote—and to ensure that any announcements on CASD are made in this Chamber first?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to both right hon. Gentlemen for giving me notice of their points of order. “Erskine May” states that
“The Speaker has made it clear that the media should not be informed about the content of statements before they have been made to the House”.
When a statement is made, Members will of course have an opportunity to ask about any advance briefing given to the media, but my position is clear: I want important policy announcements to be made first to this House. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the Chair of the Defence, Committee as well as this response. I expect that that response will be shared with all Ministers and that they will act accordingly. Thank you.
I suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the statement by the Home Secretary, I need to inform the House that because charges have now been brought in the Sarah Everard case, legal proceedings are now active for the purposes of the House’s sub judice resolution. That means that reference should not be made to the case, including to any details of those against whom charges have been brought. It is, however, in order to discuss the relationship between the covid-19 regulations and the right to protest, for example. I now call the Home Secretary.

Priti Patel: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the tragic death of Sarah Everard and the events of Saturday evening. I would like to begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with Sarah’s family and friends at this unbearable time. I know that every Member of this House will join me in offering her loved ones our deepest sympathies. While this is a horrific case, which has rightly prompted debate and questions about wider issues, we must remember that a young woman has lost her life and that a family is grieving.
Let me turn to this weekend’s events. I have already said that some of the footage circulating online of Clapham common is upsetting. While the police are rightly operationally independent, I asked the Metropolitan police for a report into what had happened. This Government back our police in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, but in the interests of providing greater assurance and ensuring public confidence, I have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct a full, independent lessons-learned review. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has welcomed this and I will await the report and, of course, update the House in due course.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge why Sarah’s death has upset so many. My heartache and that of others can be summed up in just five words, “She was just walking home.” While the specific circumstances of Sarah’s disappearance are thankfully uncommon, what has happened has reminded women everywhere of the steps that we take each day without a second thought to keep ourselves safe. It has rightly ignited anger at the danger posed to women by predatory men, an anger I feel as strongly as anyone. Accounts shared online in the wake of Sarah’s disappearance are so powerful because every single one of us can relate to them. Too many of us have walked home from school or work alone only to hear footsteps uncomfortably close behind us. Too many of us have pretended to be on the phone to a friend to scare someone off. Too many of us have clutched our keys in our fist in case we need to defend ourselves. And that is not okay.
Women and girls must feel safe while walking our streets. That is why we have continued to take action. Our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill is on track to receive Royal Assent by the end of April, and this will transform our collective response to that abhorrent crime. It builds on other measures that we have introduced, including the controlling or coercive behaviour offence and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s law, which enables individuals to ask the police whether their partner  has a violent or abusive past. We have also introduced new preventative tools and powers to tackle crimes including stalking, female genital mutilation and so-called upskirting, but we can never be complacent. That is why throughout the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, we have accepted amendments from hon. Members from political parties across the House. The Bill now includes a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, outlaws threats to disclose intimate images and extends the controlling or coercive behaviour offence to cover post-separation abuse. This is in addition to the Bill’s existing measures, which include a new statutory definition of domestic abuse that recognises the many forms that abuse can take—psychological, physical, emotional, economic and sexual—and, of course, the impact of abuse on children, as well as new rules to prevent victims from having to go through the pain of being cross-examined by their abusers in family and civil courts.
We all know that action is needed to improve the outcomes for rape cases, and we are currently developing robust actions as part of our end-to-end review of rape to reverse the decline in outcomes in recent years. At the end of last year, in December, I launched the first ever public survey of women and girls to hear their views on how we can better tackle these gendered crimes. On Friday, in the wake of the outpouring of grief, I reopened that survey. I can tell the House that as of 11 am today, the Home Office had received 78,000 responses since 6 pm on Friday. That is completely unprecedented, and considerably more than the 18,000 responses received over the entire 10-week period when the survey was previously open. I am listening to women and girls up and down the country, and their views will help to shape a new strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, which I will bring forward to the House later this year.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which we will shortly be debating, will end the halfway release of those convicted for sexual offences such as rape. Instead, under our law, vile criminals responsible for these terrible crimes will spend at least two thirds of their time behind bars. Our new law will extend the scope of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with regard to the abuse of positions of trust—something that predominantly affects young girls—and it will introduce Kay’s law, which will encourage the police to impose pre-charge bail with appropriate conditions where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. We hope that that will provide reassurance and additional protection for alleged victims in high harm cases such as domestic abuse. I note that the Opposition will be voting against these crucial measures to support victims of violent crimes, including young women and girls.
The Government are providing an extra £40 million to help victims during the pandemic and beyond. Last month we launched a new Government advertising campaign, #ItStillMatters, to raise awareness of sexual violence services and ensure that victims know where to get help.
Over the past year, during the coronavirus pandemic, the police have been faced with an unenviable and immensely difficult task—one that, for the most part, they have approached with skill and professionalism—of helping to enforce regulations, as determined by Parliament, with one crucial objective in mind: to save lives. On 6 January, this House approved those changes by 524 votes to 16. Sadly, as of Sunday 14 March, more than 125,500  lives have been lost to this horrible virus. It is for that reason that I continue to urge everyone, for as long as these regulations are in place, not to participate in large gatherings or attend protests. The right to protest is the cornerstone of our democracy, but the Government’s duty remains to prevent more lives from being lost during the pandemic.
There will undoubtedly be more discussions of these vital issues in the days and weeks to come, but we cannot and must not forget that a family is grieving. I know that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House are with Sarah’s loved ones at this truly terrible time.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make a statement and for advance sight of it. We come together at a time of national grief and what must now be a time of change. The news of Sarah Everard’s death is heartbreaking for us all and our thoughts are with her family and friends. Although I of course appreciate the legal sensitivity of the case, reports around its circumstances are extremely distressing.
The reaction to Sarah Everard’s death throughout the country has been extraordinarily powerful and moving, led by the passionate voices of women and girls who are rightly demanding action and change. It cannot be right that so many women continue to fear for their safety on a daily basis, whether on the streets or at home. The testimonies that have been shared highlight the unacceptable levels of abuse and misogyny—harassment on the streets; women walking home with their headphones turned off so that they can listen for threats, keys between fingers; women being told to stay home after dark to avoid attackers. Let me be clear: it is not women who should change their behaviour; it is men and wider society that need to change.
At times like this, it is vital that people are able to have their voices heard—in, of course, a way that is lawful and covid-secure—yet this weekend in Clapham things clearly went very wrong. I share the anger about the policing and the scenes that we saw. It is right that the Mayor of London has shown leadership by calling on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate. The Home Secretary asked for a report from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and I hope she will publish it, because transparency is so important. Will the Home Secretary also publish the minutes of the advance meeting that was held on Friday, as mentioned by the Minister for Crime and Policing in the media this morning? Will she confirm what communication she personally had with the Metropolitan police prior to the events on Saturday?
Although Saturday’s event was a vigil, not a protest, the scenes from Clapham should be a red warning light to the Government: Ministers should not be rushing through laws that crack down on protest. The truth is that the Government are failing to address violence against women and girls and Ministers even want to curtail their right to protest about it. It is a chronic failure of the Government. Meetings and the reopening of surveys are nowhere near enough—and we understand that the Minister for Women and Equalities will not even be attending the meeting this evening.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that recorded rapes doubled between 2014 and 2019—doubled. The crime survey for England and Wales showed that more than 2 million people experience domestic abuse in a year, yet only a tiny fraction of perpetrators are charged and charging rates are falling. The justice system sends a perverse message that murdering someone at home—which predominantly means men killing women—is a lesser crime than killing someone in the street, because it hands out shorter sentences for domestic homicides.
The 296-page Bill that we will consider later contains the word “memorial” eight times and fails to include the word “women” once. The Government’s message is that they want to lock up for 10 years people who damage the statues of slave traders, when rape sentences start at half of that. I say to the Government that unless this changes—unless there is action on homicide, on street harassment and on stalking—the Bill will risk becoming an abuser’s charter that just allows violence and injustice on our streets and in our homes to continue unchecked.
Ministers have been on the airwaves today struggling to find aspects of the Bill that will make a difference to addressing violence against women and girls. Let me take just one example: Ministers have pointed to whole-life tariffs for rape. When the Home Secretary gets to her feet, will she say how many rape convictions have resulted in life terms? The answer is hardly any. Today, the High Court ruled in favour of the status quo on rape. It is a status quo that is shameful and that the Government must change. The figures show that 99% of rapes reported to the police in England and Wales result in no legal proceedings whatsoever—99%. It is effectively a get-out-of-jail-free card and it is appalling.
It does not have to be this way: this could be a time of national unity when we decide to come together as a country to put forward protections. Either the Government can change course and take the necessary action, or Ministers will find themselves on the wrong side of history once again.

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but at a time when the country is mourning a significant loss and there are moments of great unity,
I am quite sorry to hear his tone, particularly regarding the Government’s record on and commitment to tackling violence against women and girls.
The right hon. Gentleman will be well sighted—more than aware—of the significant contributions of all Members of this House to the Domestic Abuse Bill, which has been under debate, scrutiny, challenge and amendment for a considerable period of time, and is in the House of Lords right now. I emphasise that we are committed to addressing violence against women and girls at the highest level. Look at the work of this Government over the last decade; I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for all her work, as she was the one who really set the bar high in legislation. That work includes not just the DA Bill, but all the measures to address female genital mutilation, and violence against women and girls, and all the money and support that has been put forward for charities. This Government are building on those measures, and no one can ignore that simple fact.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will be debated this afternoon, and he specifically mentioned rape and  rape convictions. The Bill is a criminal justice Bill as well as a policing Bill, and he will be very mindful of the work that the Government are undertaking right now through the end-to-end rape review to completely reverse the decline in outcomes that we have seen in recent years; this Government are increasingly very honest and upfront about that decline in outcomes. We are working with all relevant parties, including the Crown Prosecution Service. We want to change the direction there. There is much more work to come and that will be published in due course—shortly, in fact.
To say that the Bill does nothing for women is completely wrong, especially when it comes to sentencing, because it will end the halfway release of those convicted for sexual offences such as rape. Instead, our laws will go after those vile criminals, and they will spend at least two thirds of their time behind bars. It is worth reflecting that it was a Labour Government in 2003 who made automatic halfway release mandatory for all standard determinate sentences, regardless of whether the offender had been convicted of a violent or sexual offence. The Bill that the House will debate later will reverse that policy.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no specific mention of women in the Bill. That is another accusation that I reject, primarily because it is a criminal law and sentencing Bill, which applies equally to everybody. The Labour party knows that it is in line with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, neither of which, as Bills that related to criminal justice and sentencing, mentioned women.
There are many other measures that we will discuss later in the passage of the Bill, but I want to come back to the points that I made in my statement. It is right that I have had many discussions with the Metropolitan police and specifically the commissioner on Friday and over the weekend in relation to preparations and planning prior to Saturday evening. My comments are public and on the record regarding what has happened and, quite frankly, the upsetting images of Saturday evening. A review is now being conducted by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. It is right that that takes place. No one should prejudge anything in terms of conduct until we absolutely see what has happened through that report. The police are, rightly, operationally independent.
All of us in this House—this is not just about the Government—want to work to drive the right outcomes, so that women feel safe. Laws and legislation will absolutely do that; there is no question about that. But this is also about behaviour and culture—that is culture across society, and that is culture with men as well, and we should be up-front about that and never shy away from being honest in discussing that. Right now, all Members should have in their thoughts and prayers Sarah’s family and friends at this particularly unbearable time.

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. She is right to remind us that behind the events of Saturday lies the tragic death of Sarah Everard, a bright young woman dearly loved by her family and friends. I join my right hon. Friend and other Members of the House in saying that my thoughts and prayers are with Sarah’s family and friends at this time. We want justice for Sarah. We also want women to be able to feel and be safe on our streets and in their homes.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that the Government’s excellent Domestic Abuse Bill reaches the statute book next month, as anticipated, but also recognise that legislation is not enough? If we are going to eradicate violence against women and girls, we need a change of attitudes. That is about dealing with perpetrators and changing their behaviour but also teaching young men and boys about respect for women and what is or is not acceptable in a relationship.

Priti Patel: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work and leadership around domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. She is absolutely right that the Domestic Abuse Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that all Members of the House should feel proud of, in terms of the work that has come together across the House. She is also right about the cultural and behavioural aspects that must be changed. All of us have to be conscious of that. As a mother bringing up a young son, I think that respecting women and girls, treating everyone fairly with equality and understanding that there are no barriers in demonstrating that respect to one another and, importantly, tolerance of one another is absolutely vital.
There is so much more work to do. Legislation can only go so far. We can never, ever be complacent. The Government and both Houses share the determination and desire to do so much more when it comes to protecting girls and women, and we must be united in our strategies. This is not about just saying, “There’s a survey taking place.” We must all contribute to that. In fact, now that the survey has been reopened, I very much hope that Labour Members will contribute to it, to help us have a united and coherent approach—a one voice approach—to how we can support women and girls and prevent violence against women and girls.

Angela Crawley: The murder of Sarah Everard has truly shocked and saddened us all, and I join others in sending our heartfelt condolences to Sarah’s family and friends at this time. “She was walking home”—a sentence that resonates with all women. This tragedy serves as a stark reminder to women, who assess every aspect of their daily lives in fear of sexual violence, assault or abhorrent crimes at the hands of men. I once more take this opportunity to urge the Prime Minister to ratify the Istanbul convention without further delay.
Across the UK this weekend, women reclaimed the streets in protest and to pay tribute to the life of Sarah Everard. Police responding have received widespread criticism, and questions must be answered about whether the actions were necessary and proportionate to protect people and prevent public harm. The public health crisis has made restrictions necessary and public gatherings inadvisable. While the police face difficult decisions every day, it is impossible to watch the footage of the events at Clapham common without shock and concern that the policing appeared heavy-handed and disproportionate. It is therefore right that the chief inspector of constabulary has been asked to conduct a review. In Scotland, this incident would have been examined by the Independent Advisory Group—experts with a specific remit to ensure that the use of powers is consistent with human rights principles and legislation.
In terms of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the right to protest must remain a fundamental human right. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the chief inspector’s review will focus on human rights as well as policing matters?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for her sentiment on the tragic death of Sarah Everard. If I may, I will come back on a number of points. The hon. Lady is absolutely right on the role of the inspectorate, and we will wait for that review and, obviously, I will report back. It is worth reflecting, once again, that this has been a difficult and demanding period for the police, with the impact of coronavirus restrictions—we know why they are in place. On the point about protest, I am very conscious that we will have the debate later this afternoon as well. This Government absolutely support freedom of expression and, clearly, the whole issue of the right to protest is fundamental to our democratic freedoms. Without wanting to pre-judge the debate or the future discussions on the Bill, let me say that the legislation will, of course, speak about the police using powers in terms of how they would manage protest, but it is also worth reflecting that this will be updating legislation—the Public Order Act 1986—that was enacted more than 30 years ago. So this will be very much part of the discussion we will be having in due course.

Dehenna Davison: I join my right hon. Friend and voices from right across the House in paying my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and loved ones. It is a truly heartbreaking situation, which I know has allowed many women to find the strength to share their own experiences, and I was really moved to hear that 78,000 people have now responded to the reopened consultation. I am encouraging many others to do the same and share their voice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we really want to get the best outcome and make our streets feel safer for everyone, we have to listen to all voices—both men and women, and people of all political persuasions—to ensure that we are truly working together to deliver the change we need?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her questions. She is of course absolutely right; this is a collective effort, for everyone to be part of shaping future strategy, policy and legislation. We can do that together, which is why it is unprecedented and incredible that 78,000 people have responded to the survey. We are really pleased about that, because we do want to encourage people to contribute. As you have heard me say, Mr Speaker, I encourage all Members of this House to play their role and join that contribution.

Yvette Cooper: May I join in the expressions from across the House of deep sympathy and condolences to Sarah Everard’s family following her tragic death? Women across the country have been moved to talk about the experiences that we all share, and that no one should have to endure, of feeling threatened and unsafe on our own streets. Eight months ago, I put forward measures to deal with repeat perpetrators of abuse and stalking: to be able to register them; and to be able to prevent the  problem where they move from one victim to another, no one keeps track and they get away with it. At that time, Ministers said that those measures were not needed. Has the Home Secretary looked at this again? Will she work with me, Baroness Royall and Paladin to make sure we can bring in these strong measures, take action against repeat perpetrators and keep more women safe?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the points that she has been raising and the measures at large. There is something about perpetrators and their serial offending that has to be addressed—there is no question about that. Of course this does link predominantly to many of the criminal justice outcomes and the wider debate that this House will be having, not just later today, but over future weeks. I will be very candid: we will look at all measures, and rightly so. We should be doing everything possible to keep women safe—and indeed everybody safe. The behaviour of serial perpetrators and offenders is deeply corrosive and damaging, and obviously it has dreadful, dreadful implications and consequences. So we will be happy to continue not just to look at these measures, but, right now, with the violence against women and girls consultation that is under way, to engage with others and follow up on these points.

Philip Davies: It is clearly unacceptable for any woman to feel unsafe walking the streets. Can I propose some practical measures that the Home Secretary might adopt? Can she introduce a fund to roll out much more CCTV around the country, which will help to make our streets safer for people and bring evidence where there is a crime committed? Can she stop taking people off the DNA database? There are huge numbers of crimes—sexual assaults, rapes and murders—where there is DNA evidence available but no match. The more people on the DNA database, the more chance of getting these people off our streets and rightly convicted. Can we increase the sentences for people convicted of sexual assaults and rapes? Can we stop the automatic early release of criminals who are still considered a threat to society? These measures would help to make our streets safer for everyone.

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his practical suggestions. We are doing a lot on CCTV, and we do have the Safer Streets fund, which he will be very aware of. He has raised a number of areas, and I suspect that if he were to join the Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, he could absolutely contribute to that and make those points there.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I join Members in continuing to extend our thoughts and prayers to Sarah Everard’s family. My constituents have reacted with justified anger to the Metropolitan police’s treatment of those in attendance at this weekend’s vigil to commemorate Sarah and all women who lost their lives to gender-based violence. It is bitterly ironic that an event intended to highlight the issue of public safety for women was blocked on the grounds of public safety. What happened this weekend is a reminder of what happens when police try to completely bypass the views of the communities they serve. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the police’s high-handed approach got the balance between public safety and the right to  protest completely wrong? Does she agree that the police’s heavy-handed treatment of female protesters was wrong? Will she now accept that her Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is ill-conceived? My constituents are very angry about what has happened and want to know what the Government will do to reassure them that they will proactively address violence against women and girls and deep-seated forms of institutional discrimination in the UK police.

Priti Patel: I understand the sentiments that the hon. Lady is raising on behalf of her constituents and obviously recognise the constituency that she represents and the terrible, tragic events that have taken place. All our thoughts are clearly with Sarah Everard and her family. Of course, the Metropolitan police themselves had been involved with the vigil that was planned and spent a great deal of time with the organisers, and the Metropolitan police have been very public about that. I am not going to repeat my comments about seeking greater assurance and ensuring public confidence in policing, hence the reason why Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is now conducting a full, independent “lessons learned” review. I think that is absolutely appropriate. My comments about Saturday evening are on the record and well known.
With regard to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, that is a manifesto Bill that this Government were elected on, and we will of course participate in its Second Reading later on this afternoon. It is not ill-conceived at all. The British people voted for it. We live in a democracy and this Government will work to deliver on it.

Pauline Latham: I welcome the announced in-depth review of the criminal justice system when it comes to rape and sexual assault. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every part of the criminal justice system has to play its role in bringing perpetrators to justice and better supporting victims? A lot of rape happens within marriage, and it is not the best situation when people have married under the age of 18 to a man who is much older. Will she also look at that to see how we can stop that sort of situation arising?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would like to pay tribute to her for all her work and campaigning on this particular issue. Of course, she is absolutely right that this about the criminal justice system from an end-to-end perspective—from policing right through not just to charging, but to conviction. That is effectively what the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is about, which is why it goes across two Departments.
The rape review is fundamentally important because obviously the numbers have not been going in the right direction. We have to understand the lessons as to why charging decisions have been how they are, and the impact on witnesses and victims themselves, including, with victims, the attrition that takes place when it comes to going to court. A lot of work is taking place in this area.
I should also mention in dispatches that the Prime Minister leads the crime and justice taskforce. This is one of those fundamental issues, again across  Government—not just the Home Office, but across the MOJ—where we are bringing core elements together with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and working with the CPS and working with the Attorney General. These issues are absolutely integral to the entire system.

Edward Davey: I send my condolences and thoughts to the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this most difficult of times.
The scenes of women being forced to the ground, restrained and arrested simply for holding a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Everard and in condemnation of violence against women and girls were utterly disgraceful. Of course the Met Commissioner Cressida Dick must resign, but what personal responsibility does the Home Secretary herself have for the terrible handling of this peaceful vigil? Did the Home Secretary speak to the Met commissioner in the run-up to the vigil, and if so, will she tell the House now what guidance and advice she gave the Met police in advance of the vigil?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that those scenes were distressing and upsetting. There is no question about that at all, and I have already spoken about the measures that are now in place for getting assurance about the way in which the Metropolitan police conducted its operations. It is rightly operationally independent, and the independent lessons learned review is obviously now taking place.
I had been in touch with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday and throughout the weekend, and we have had extensive discussions on planning and preparation for the vigil. I should, however, emphasise that on Friday there was legal action under way, so until that legal action had been determined—and of course the commissioner and the Met police themselves were engaging with the organisers of the vigil—there were various plans that the police were working on. I will be very clear, though: on Friday my views were known, and they were based on the fact that people obviously wanted to pay tribute within the locality.
We need to bear in mind that we are in a pandemic—we cannot forget that; we are in a health pandemic—but for people who live locally and out on a daily basis or passing through, laying flowers is absolutely the right thing to do, and we saw many people doing that. Of course, as I have said, those scenes on Saturday evening were upsetting. That is the reason why I asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to provide a report on the event itself and what happened, and now why we have a lessons learned review into the operational effect and the impact of what happened.

Stephen Hammond: Like colleagues across the House, my condolences are with Sarah Everard’s family and friends.
All women should feel safe, and no offender should think they can abuse women on the streets or anywhere else. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all reports of allegations of abuse must be seriously and more rigorously investigated, and that there must be confidence in the justice system that it will do this and that it will support victims? Will she confirm that she intends that there will be such confidence in the justice system after the consultation on the violence against women and girls strategy?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Much of what we are discussing right now speaks to greater assurance and public confidence in the criminal justice system and of course, as Members have touched on already, in policing and the events on Saturday evening. It is vitally important that, through the VAWG consultation and the development of the strategy, we look at this not in an isolated way, but end to end. We need to look at the entire system, right down to the types of abuse and harassment that girls and women are experiencing. We need to look at the root causes and behavioural factors to understand why perpetrators and individuals are behaving in a particular way. We need to look at why abuse is taking place and at how we as a country and a Government tackle those issues. That does impinge on the criminal justice system. All our work is based on driving better outcomes—the right outcomes—so that, when criminality takes place, we can ensure that the perpetrators of crimes are receiving the tough sentences that they deserve.

Caroline Lucas: I join others in extending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and to the families of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and countless others who have lost their lives because of male violence.
I acknowledge the particular policing challenges at a time of covid restrictions, but the Met is still obliged to follow the Human Rights Act and execute its powers proportionately and only when necessary. It is clear to everyone that it got it terribly wrong on Saturday night. Does the Secretary of State therefore not see that handing over yet more draconian powers to the police when they have so badly misjudged this situation would be both foolish and dangerous? A Bill that criminalises protests that are noisy and have impact effectively means cancelling this country’s long-standing right to peaceful protest altogether. Finally, will she stand in solidarity with the women arrested over the weekend and call for the withdrawal of any fixed-penalty notices that were issued because of the Met’s disproportionate response?

Priti Patel: I will not go over my comments about the police on Saturday evening. Those points have been made. I absolutely disagree with what the hon. Lady said, but we will discuss it further on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill later this afternoon. The fact is that, as a country, we believe in freedom of expression, free speech and the rights of people to express themselves freely through protest—managed protest—in the right way. The police always engage with individuals and organisers. We will debate this during the course of the Bill, but I am afraid that the hon. Lady has completely misrepresented the proposals that we are putting forward.

Iain Duncan Smith: The murder of Sarah Everard was a shocking event and I feel terribly sorry for what the family has gone through, made even edgier really by the fact that there have now been charges levelled against a police officer. We require police officers to protect everybody, particularly women. However, I received a note—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be talking about the suspect at this stage.

Iain Duncan Smith: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was not going to refer to him other than just in passing.
The reality is that my right hon. Friend has announced that she will have an inquiry into those terrible events on Saturday night. They were shameful, but it ill behoves politicians to get up and pass judgment on what happened without having all the evidence. I was contacted by a female police officer today to tell me what happened to her on that night. She was threatened and told that she, not Sarah Everard, should have been murdered. She was also manhandled. I simply say that both sides should be dialling this down, not trying to raise the temperature by calling for resignations.

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks—his point was well made. I, too, have been written to by many police officers expressing very similar sentiments from their own experiences. The point about not pre-judging is absolutely right. The police have operational independence. Obviously, as Home Secretary, I called for a report. I have now received that report, and an independent review is under way. It is right that we have that review, yes, for assurance purposes, but also to strengthen public confidence in policing and, obviously, for all Members of this House to hear the full facts of what happened in due course.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I take this opportunity to extend my personal sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this horrific time.
In June 2020, I proposed a domestic abuse register for the early identification of abusive men as a means of preventing death and injury. The Minister for Safeguarding rejected that, claiming that current systems for preventing violence against women were adequate. The National Police Chiefs’ Council also objected, on the grounds of cost and its capacity to manage such a register.
I sense that the Government now recognise that the current system is failing women and that a properly funded, staffed and supported register for serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators is urgently needed. How will the Home Secretary ensure that such new proposals and funding properly account for the different legislative landscape in Wales, so that women in Wales are not excluded from future protections, which I hope are on their way?

Priti Patel: I think this is an important moment for this House and for all colleagues when it comes to Domestic Abuse Bill measures, which have been extensively debated in the House. The right hon. Lady has clearly spoken about Wales and the authority and responsibilities there. We are absolutely working across the devolved Administrations, because we want consistency of approach.
It is right that we all work together to support women, and the Domestic Abuse Bill will absolutely do that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Safeguarding has worked extensively with all colleagues in the House on the issue that the right hon. Lady raises, but the fact of the matter is that we want that Bill to receive Royal Assent. It should do so very soon. We need that to happen to safeguard more and more women and give them the protection that they desperately need from their abusers.

Chris Loder: I went to Clapham common bandstand yesterday evening to pay my own respects. I, like Members across the House, send my greatest sympathies and sadnesses to Sarah’s family.
I believe that it is highly regrettable that Members of the Opposition demand that the first female Commissioner of the Metropolitan police resign in this situation. May I ask my right hon. Friend what she is doing to ensure that the facts are understood properly before premature conclusions are made on people’s actions?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the sentiment that he has shared with the House this afternoon. I agree entirely with his comments. Alongside that, of course, he asks what I am doing. I have commissioned the inspectorate of constabulary. It is important that we have the full facts in addition, to supplement the lessons learned review. I come back to the point that I really, strongly recommend that colleagues do not prejudge. The images were upsetting—of course they were upsetting—but alongside that, it is right that we see the full report in due course and that we hear the facts as they come out.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I add my condolences to the family and friends of Ms Everard, and all those who have been affected by this most hellish and tragic of murders.
Turning to the events that we saw on Clapham common on Saturday evening, I think Members are entitled to ask the question, what on earth was the Metropolitan police thinking? What on earth happened to police discretion? What on earth happened to proportionality, to flexibility, to empathy, to any sense of self-awareness, given the circumstances that surrounded that hellish murder? Every ingredient of good policing, in my view and in the view of many of my constituents, appeared to be completely absent from the policing activity on Clapham common.
The defining image that will stick in the collective mind of Britain will be of Patsy Stevenson being almost sat upon by three police officers while being detained. I must say that if I saw one of my adult daughters treated in that way, I would find it impossible to contain my anger. May I ask the Home Secretary, therefore: how quickly will this report be made available? How expeditiously can she act to rectify what is an appalling wrong?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman’s comments are very strong, but in response to his question, he knows, and the House knows, that I have commissioned a report from the inspectorate of constabulary. I have asked for the report to be concluded in the next fortnight. We will obviously then update the House in terms of findings and recommendations.
I think it is worth reflecting that in terms of what happened on Saturday, for approximately eight hours there was peace around the bandstand. People were respectfully paying their respects, laying flowers, grieving and showing support and empathy in a way in which every individual would want to in offering their sympathies and condolences. That is why we need to look at the review to see effectively what happened operationally, and then if lessons need to be learned, they will be post the report.

Sarah Dines: May I also offer my condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to hear this afternoon that the Opposition are actually opposing the provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which wants to increase sentences for rapists? There is a dichotomy there that is a bit absurd, is it not?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be very frank, I was quite surprised when I heard that was the position that the Opposition were taking. This is a criminal justice Bill. It will increase sentences for individuals and perpetrators who perpetrate the most horrendous, appalling sexual offences and crimes against women, children and citizens. It is an important Bill, as I have already said. It was key to our manifesto, and the British public voted for it. This Government and our party in government are absolutely determined to strengthen our laws and the criminal justice system so that we can put away those individuals who cause harm to individuals and increase sentences.

Diane Abbott: Our thoughts and prayers are with Sarah Everard’s family. The Home Secretary will be aware that the whole nation was upset by the images of women who had come to a peaceful vigil about violence against women finding themselves wrestled to the ground and handcuffed by police officers. The statement by the Metropolitan police sought to justify what happened on Saturday by talking about
“the overriding need to protect people’s safety”.
Is she aware that some people are puzzled by the idea that you can make people safe by manhandling them and handcuffing them?
In relation to the policing Bill, which the House will be debating later, the Home Secretary herself has made it clear that it is expressly designed to crack down on peaceful protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. She described the peaceful protests by Black Lives Matter as “dreadful”. Can she understand why many people in this country believe that giving the police even more powers to crack down on peaceful protest can only lead to more distressing scenes like those the nation witnessed on Saturday at the vigil on Clapham common?

Priti Patel: With respect to the right hon. Lady, I urge her not to be so judgmental with regards to the events on Saturday evening until we see the report that comes from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. She will have plenty of opportunity to discuss protest and police powers during the passage of the Bill, but I would like to say this: in recent years, we have seen a significant change in protest tactics, which has led to disruption and also to violence and people’s lives being endangered. I look forward to the debate with her on this particular point later on, but she is absolutely wrong in her characterisation of the measures we are introducing.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, I just say that I am very keen to ensure we get everybody in during this important statement. I ask colleagues to be fairly brief with their questions and their answers as well.

Graham Brady: I will try my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary rightly said that the right to protest is a cornerstone of our democracy but, as she also said, on 6 January the House voted for swingeing powers to control protests for the period of the coronavirus restrictions. May I ask her to work with concerned Members across the House to ensure that the legislation we are about to pass protects that right of peaceful protest and stops only serious disruption?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will continue to engage with all colleagues on this. It is a really important point, and I know how hard it has been for many colleagues in the House. Of course, the regulations, with their implications and the restrictions they have brought in, will be subject to debate in the House going forward.

Harriet Harman: I would like to pay my deepest sympathy and respects to the family of Sarah Everard and her many dismayed and grieving friends. I welcome the reopening of the violence against women and girls consultation. It is evident that the Home Secretary recognises the genuine and justified strength of feeling about women’s safety that lay behind the vigil on Clapham common, so surely it was just wrong of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to refuse to reach agreement with the organisers and find a way so that the vigil could go ahead safely.
Does the Home Secretary agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the law on protest during the covid pandemic needs to be clarified so that protests can go ahead, but do so safely? The Joint Committee has drafted regulations that will be published with our report later this week. Will she undertake to consider them seriously with a view to laying them before the House?

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her comments. I think everyone across the House has expressed shock, grief and, obviously, concern about the images from Saturday evening. There is no dispute there whatsoever. I will, of course, look at the report when it is published and I will be more than happy to have discussions with colleagues about it. We are in a pandemic, and this has been a very difficult period. It has been difficult for the police as well—I am the first to acknowledge that. We have asked the police to do unprecedented things, and they have had unprecedented powers throughout the pandemic based on the need to protect public health. With the incredible work of the vaccine roll-out, and as we ensure that that carries on smoothly and we move through the Prime Minister’s road map and plan of easements, one would now hope that we can work together collectively, yes, to live with coronavirus but do things differently.

Fay Jones: I join colleagues across the House in sending my heartfelt condolences to Sarah Everard’s loved ones. I am shocked at the way in which Saturday night’s vigil was policed. The situation demanded sensitivity and compassion—something which was evidently lacking. But I am also shocked that what started as a peaceful and important vigil turned into a protest, with photographs showing ACAB—“all cops are bastards”—signs. I am concerned that a young woman’s murder could be hijacked by  those who would seek to defund the police and destabilise our society, making it even harder for women to come forward and report assaults. Will the Home Secretary confirm that nothing will deter the Government from delivering stronger legislation to protect women and girls from harm?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for the points that she made. She is absolutely right. We will continue to do everything in our strategies, policies and laws going forward to protect women and ensure that they are safeguarded in the right way. She also made the very important point that a peaceful vigil on Saturday turned into some pretty ugly scenes. We will wait for the report. There is no question but that where there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned. Where individuals were acting inappropriately, in the way in which she said, that will also be subject to some consideration.

Rosie Duffield: First, I would like to put on record my thanks to Kent police for their incredibly difficult work in the ongoing investigation into the tragic death of Sarah Everard. In order to seriously tackle violence against women and girls, it is vital to put women at the heart of legislation. However, in today’s policing Bill, women are not even mentioned. With that in mind, and with rape convictions at a shocking all-time low, how will the Home Secretary ensure that women can come forward with confidence that they will be believed and that they will receive justice?

Priti Patel: If I may, I too would like to thank Kent police for all the work they have done in conjunction with the Metropolitan police in the investigation associated with the Sarah Everard case. This has been a very difficult time across policing; there is no doubt about that.
I am not going to come back in detail to those points, because I have covered many already in my statement. I speak with conviction in my determination, as does every member of this Government, when it comes to safeguarding women and to our strategies and approach to violence against women and girls. As I have repeatedly said, I would welcome all Members joining us in a cross-party effort to do much more to give women and girls the confidence to come forward.

Charles Walker: This House criminalised the freedom of protest. It was this House—us—not Dame Cressida or the Metropolitan police, who criminalised the freedom to protest collectively. We are up to our eyeballs in this. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agree that now is the time to decriminalise freedom of protest—not tomorrow, not next week, but this afternoon or this evening? Let us get people back on the streets and allow them to get things off their chest again. Protest is a safety valve.

Priti Patel: I understand entirely the sentiment that my hon. Friend has emphasised this afternoon. The Prime Minister has laid out a road map, and I appreciate that my hon. Friend would love me to say right now, “Let’s just do this and change things immediately,” but we are still in a pandemic and we are following the guidance that has been put in place. Obviously, it will be subject to debate over the next week or so, and I am more than happy to continue to discuss this with my colleagues.

Vicky Foxcroft: Peaceful assembly must be an absolute right in this country, and the actions of the police on Saturday were deeply troubling. I would like to highlight the use of kettling, in particular. Many disabled people and disabled people’s organisations have long raised concerns about the use of this controversial crowd control tactic, which in the past has been used for up to 10 hours, with serious potential health implications. What does the Home Secretary have to say to the many disabled people who fear this disproportionate policy?

Priti Patel: In response to the hon. Lady’s question about operational tactics—of which kettling is one, based on a police assessment around a situation, a protest or an event—the police themselves make judgments and decisions about the tactics that they use as part of their operations.
The hon. Lady raised an important point about disabled people who wish to express themselves by participating in protests. Of course, their needs can be met by working with the police, and many organisers talk to the police about the groups of people and the characteristics of individuals who are coming out to protest. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. She will be well aware of the approach that the police take in engaging with organisers over protests.

Laura Farris: I would like to put on record my sympathies to the family and partner of Sarah Everard.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. In the last few months I have been working with Our Streets Now on the issue of public street harassment: vile and explicit language that is aimed at women with the purpose of degrading them. It is often aimed at children—schoolgirls. I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s strategy later this year, but will she consider, as part of that, introducing legislation that might address the issue?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have met many schoolgirls who are a part of that campaign. We will consider all options as part of the VAWG strategy.

Alison Thewliss: On Sunday, I shed a tear, along with so many other women, at the gates of Queen’s Park, where ribbons and tributes had been left in memory of Sarah Everard, and for Moira Jones who was raped and murdered there in 2008 and all women who have experienced abuse at the hands of men. May I ask what the Home Secretary is going to do to change the toxic culture we have that diminishes and minimises women’s experience, and to challenge the whole spectrum of men’s behaviour so that my daughter and all young women can grow up without living their lives in fear?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady has an opportunity to join us. She has heard me speak today, as all colleagues have, about the need to contribute to our VAWG strategy. This is not about the work of one individual; this is about what we do collectively, together, in terms of cultural norms and a change in behaviours. We all have a role to play and I urge her to join us in that effort.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and extend my heartfelt condolences to Sarah Everard’s family at  this time. Does she agree with me and my constituents that it is frankly absurd for the Labour party to call for tougher sentences against rapists while, in the same breath, opposing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which delivers exactly that?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend sums it up perfectly. I completely agree with the sentiment she has just expressed.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Last week on the Armed Forces Committee we heard about prosecuting crimes, including rape, through the military courts. One statement stood out for me. It was:
“our servicepeople are thoroughly good people, but they drink too much, something goes wrong and they end up in court.”
What discussions has the Home Secretary’s Department had about that attitude towards victims of male violence, and does it reflect a general attitude to women that we saw on Saturday on Clapham Common?

Priti Patel: First, no it does not reflect a general attitude to women, and no one should pre-judge or make assumptions of that nature. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, though, in terms of the armed forces work and the work that has taken place across both Departments. Our Minister with responsibility for safeguarding has done extensive work on this particular issue with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and that will of course continue.

Caroline Nokes: May I express my condolences to Sarah Everard’s friends and family? I thank the Home Secretary for reopening the VAWG consultation and for requesting the lessons learned review into Saturday night’s policing. She has shown that she is determined there will be action, not just words. Some 78,000 responses so far is absolutely enormous. These are women who do not have confidence in the system at present and we desperately need to instil confidence for them. It will take an enormous effort in shifting cultures, coming together and working collectively to make sure we achieve that aim. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those women are going to have their voices heard on the justice taskforce, which looks suspiciously like an all-male room?

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for her points, and obviously the importance and significance of the VAWG consultation and the fact that that has been reopened. Let me give her an assurance that the crime and justice taskforce is not a male show at all. I am obviously a part of that, as is the safeguarding Minister. There are many other agencies and parties involved, including the first female Metropolitan police commissioner, so there are a range of voices. Again, I urge people not to be too judgmental and assume that all the work that takes place in government is just by men, because it is not.

Rosie Winterton: Again, just a reminder to colleagues that we need to be quite brief in our questions if we are going to be able to get everybody in, which I want to do. I am sure the way will be led by Kim Johnson.

Kim Johnson: I would like to add my thoughts and condolences to the families of Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and all women who have died violently. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that if you are black, disabled or a trans woman you are disproportionately more likely to be a victim of violence? That is not emphasised in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. What steps is she taking to rectify that?

Priti Patel: We want to prevent anyone from becoming a victim of crime. It should be not just our conviction and determination, but our collective imperative, to ensure that no one becomes a victim, and particularly anybody from the groups to which the hon. Lady referred.

Maria Miller: May I, too, send my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard, and I echo the comments made about the events of Saturday evening? Nobody should feel threatened when on our streets, and the best way to prevent violence against women and girls is to tackle the root causes of that violence. New Government research has identified viewing pornography, particularly violent pornography, as an influential factor in harmful sexual behaviour towards women and girls. How will my right hon. Friend reflect that finding in new Government policy?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful and important point about those behavioural aspects and their links to pornography. I know she has focused on that issue, and I would very much like to discuss it with her further as part of our work to protect women and girls from violence.

Wera Hobhouse: My heart goes out to Sarah Everard’s family and friends during this horrific time. A year ago on International Women’s Day, I introduced a private Member’s Bill to make misogyny a hate crime. In light of the recent horrific events, and the continued failure to prevent violence against women and girls, will the Government commit to adopt my Bill and to end some of the continuing injustices against women?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady will know that the Law Commission is considering that area, and its consultation closed in December. I will work with the House and report back on this whole area, and I will continue to work on that with the safeguarding Minister.

Suzanne Webb: I am proud of a Government who, since 2010, have put women’s safety at the heart of their policymaking. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill puts women at the front and centre of this Government’s policymaking when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right, and I again pay tribute to everybody who has worked on that landmark Bill, which will lead to the protection of more women and children from domestic violence. We want the Bill to receive Royal Assent.

Rupa Huq: The tragedy that befell Sarah Everard is a cue for rethinking so much, including readopting and designing out crime principles in our built environment. As one small Asian woman to another, may I ask that in all new housing developments, and in the reappraisal of the low-traffic network road changes that are due, consultative consideration of women’s safety and fear of crime is mandated, so that appropriate natural surveillance is built in? We must avoid creating nouveaux ghettoes, where perceptions leave women trapped and vulnerable.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes such an important and interesting point about designing out crime and threat, particularly from public spaces. A lot of work is taking place right now to keep the public safe in public places, and that is something we will look at.

Luke Evans: I have been contacted by several constituents in Bosworth who are concerned about events over the weekend. On one hand some are concerned about the police’s conduct, and on the other hand are concerns about mass gatherings during a pandemic. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made about the fact that this is an operational issue for the Met, versus the fundamental framework of the law? Taking that forward, will she reassure my constituents that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will protect the rights of those protesting and the right of the police to be safe, but also set out the responsibility of those protesting not to cause serious disruption, and that of the police to act proportionately?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. He is right in some cases, but I think in the interests of time, we will come back to some of these points shortly when we discuss the Bill.

Angela Eagle: We now live in a country where domestic violence has soared but prosecutions have plummeted, where rape has effectively been decriminalised because prosecutions are at their lowest ever level and where stalking a woman gets a shorter sentence than fly-tipping. This is the record of the Home Secretary and her Government. Is she proud of it?

Priti Patel: I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made earlier, including the fact that I disagree with the points that she has just made.

Stella Creasy: A quarter of all police forces are either already actively recording or trialling recording where crimes are motivated by a hatred of somebody’s sex or gender. Where they do this, the police have better intelligence to track and prevent violence against women and women report more confidence in coming forward to report assaults and harassment. Will the Home Secretary and her Government drop their opposition to amendment 87B to the Domestic Abuse Bill tonight in the House of Lords in order to require that all police forces follow this best practice in England and Wales? That will finally put us on the road to equalising misogyny as a hate crime, as it should be.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady will have to follow the debate in the other place later on. As she will well know, there is extensive debate and discussion on this issue.

Selaine Saxby: I would also like to add my condolences to the family and friends of Sarah Everard. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Domestic Abuse Bill showcases this Government’s commitment to protecting and listening to victims of domestic abuse, who are mostly women, so that we can tackle this abhorrent crime effectively? That goes alongside the increased funding we have given to organisations such as North Devon Against Domestic Abuse in my constituency, which does so much to support the victims of this dreadful abuse.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will not go through the measures I touched on earlier. Clearly, the Domestic Abuse Bill is a landmark Bill that will absolutely change outcomes on domestic abuse and increase support to women who have been victims of it.

Helen Hayes: My thoughts are also with the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this desperately sad time. On the same day that the suspect in the Sarah Everard investigation was arrested, UN Women published survey results showing that 97% of women aged 18 to 24 have experienced sexual harassment. While we wait for the reviews and investigations into the events of Saturday night, will the Home Secretary work with the Metropolitan police to mandate that every officer serving undertakes training on misogyny and sexual harassment so that young women living in London have confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously and that they will receive an appropriate response from the police when reporting this aggression, which causes women everywhere to be fearful every day in our streets and public spaces?

Priti Patel: When it comes to police training, I think it is important to reflect on a lot of the work that is already under way across all police forces, not just the Metropolitan police force. The College of Policing has extensive work taking place in this area, which is also subject to a lot of the work that takes place at the National Crime Agency Board.

David Johnston: I also extend my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s friends and family. Does my right hon. Friend agree that preventing violence against women is partly about what we do with boys? That means teaching them that what is often depicted on TV, online and in video games is not acceptable behaviour, as well as simply restricting what they see through the forthcoming online harms Bill.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is another Bill that will come to the House in due course. This is about cultural aspects and the behaviours we inculcate in our children, including how our boys grow up and the things they are exposed to. This will be subject to much discussion and we welcome the views of my hon. Friend and others in the consultation we have just reopened.

Dawn Butler: I send my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s loved ones and all those who have lost loved ones to violence, including Bibaa Henry’s and Nicole Smallman’s loved ones, who have been really struggling recently. Sir Patrick Vallance said that
“it is clear in the SAGE papers…that outdoors is much lower risk than indoors”
and that
“it is difficult to see how”
outdoor events
“can cause a spike.”
So public health was not really the primary, driving factor, but even if we do accept that some of the restrictions were needed to safeguard public health, as a Parliament—as a defender of free speech—we need to be careful about restricting the rights of people to express their views. Saturday showed us the mess of not allowing people to organise properly and what happens when the police are confused about their powers. The general public did not vote to have their democracy removed and their voice silenced. Can I ask the Home Secretary who she is consulting when suggesting additional, draconian police powers?

Priti Patel: I refer the hon. Lady to comments that I have made extensively this afternoon about covid restrictions, but also the fact that, when it came to the events on Saturday—the vigil—extensive dialogue had taken place between the Metropolitan police and the organisers.

James Gray: I know the Home Secretary will agree that there are very many serious questions to be answered about the policing of the vigil on Clapham common on Saturday evening. However, does she not also agree that it is quite wrong to conflate that with the perfectly reasonable provisions in the Bill that will be debated later this afternoon, which will prevent disruptive protests of all kinds that prevent people from coming into Parliament, ambulances from getting on their way and ordinary people from going about their everyday business? That is a completely different matter and the two should not be conflated.

Priti Patel: That is absolutely right, and I thank my hon. Friend for his point and comments. There is, conveniently, far too much conflation taking place when it comes to examples of protest. This will be subject to debate later today during the passage of the Bill, but he is absolutely correct on that.

Joanna Cherry: Much of the debate over the last few days has focused on how we secure women’s safety in the public domain. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is equally important that Government policy secures women’s safety in private settings, including women’s refuges? And does she agree that Government should prioritise upholding single-sex spaces, services, provision and roles for women and girls where single-sex provision is permitted under the Equality Act 2010?

Priti Patel: The hon. and learned Lady makes important points about violence that takes place at home and the need to safeguard women. This is exactly what this Government have been doing—particularly over the now soon to be 12 months under coronavirus and this pandemic—through the money that we have been putting in place for refuges and providing support, but also by giving awareness and places where people can go to demonstrate, express themselves or let the police know that they have been a victim of abuse. This work will continue. It is so important, and I should conclude by saying that as we unlock through the road map on coronavirus, we should be prepared for more people to  raise some unpleasant experiences that they have had, and they will be supported through policing and by this Government.

Catherine West: Homicide rates among women have shot up under this Government. The impact of Sarah Everard’s murder is devastating in Hornsey and Wood Green, where hundreds of women, men and teenagers from all corners of my constituency have written in to express their grief and anger. What urgent action will the Home Secretary take to convince us that they take violence against women and girls seriously? Until there is a credible response, I am putting the Home Secretary on notice that women in Hornsey and Wood Green will not be patronised and silenced.

Priti Patel: No one should be patronised or silenced, which is why we have reopened the VAWG consultation, and 78,000 people have responded since 6 pm on Friday evening. I urge others to come forward as well. Perhaps the hon. Lady would also like to encourage her constituents to do so. There is much more work that we can do collectively to drive better outcomes to stop violence against women and girls.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. We will have a two-minute suspension to allow for the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

National Bus Strategy: England

Grant Shapps: I would like to make a statement about bus services. Britain is often described as a railway nation, but if we have a national form of public transport, it is definitely the bus, carrying more than 4 billion passengers a year in England—more than twice as many as rail—over a vast network. No other type of public transport comes close for convenience, affordability and popularity. If anyone needs persuading of the bus’s value, surely the 2020 experience has provided us with the evidence we need. Without buses operating day and night, many key workers would have been unable to get to work, so we owe a debt of gratitude to the bus industry and, in particular, to the magnificent bus drivers for keeping this country moving.
Covid has shown that buses provide Britain with far more than just a means of travel. There are a lifeline for millions. In normal times, they help students to get to college, they help those without work to attend job interviews, they help the elderly to get to the shops and they help us all to get about. They are crucial for the survival of our high streets, for rural businesses and for the planet, too. For many disabled people, they can be an accessible way to stay mobile. In all these ways, buses are not just an industry but almost a social service. Fundamentally, they help us to level up the country.
Buses can and should also be the transport of choice, in my view. London, Brighton and Harrogate have already proved this, with frequent modern services and dedicated lanes attracting millions of journeys a year from the private car. We want to do that everywhere throughout the country, yet in most regions outside London services have been in decline for decades. Successive Governments before this one have failed to prioritise buses, either with sufficient investment or with a workable plan. That is why this Government are taking action to revitalise bus services, and why today we have published the national bus strategy for England outside of London, with its bold vision for the industry to reform the way it has managed to deliver tangible benefits for passengers, and this is all backed by £3 billion of Government investment.
Covid has hit the bus sector hard, as it has all transport, but it is also provided an opportunity to put better bus services at the heart of the community. Throughout 2020, bus companies and councils have had to co-operate as never before to keep services running for key workers. Now we want to harness the same sense of partnership and change the way the industry fundamentally works by putting the passenger and the environment first.
Passengers want simpler fares, more routes and services, easier information and greener buses, and this bus strategy reflects people’s lives. In cities and towns, this means that travelling when we want and where we want becomes easy to do on a bus. We expect councils and operators to bring in simple, cheap flat fares with contactless payment by card or by phone. Up-to-date information should be available immediately on our phones, on board the buses and at bus stops. We want closer integration of services and ticketing across all forms of public transport, so that people can seamlessly travel from buses to trams  to trains and we end the absurd situation where different operators do not recognise or accept each other’s tickets. We want to have much more of the “turn up and go” type of service—the kind of frequency that means you do not even have to look at the timetable before you get on the bus—and more services in the evening and at weekends.
In rural areas and out-of-town business parks, we sometimes need to be able to provide buses that are available on demand from an app on your phone. Today, I am pleased to announce £20 million of investment from our rural mobility fund to trial on-demand services in 17 different locations, including minibuses booked via an app that people pick near their home at a time that is convenient to them.
I want anyone who happens to be disabled to be able to confidently travel when and where they want, so this bus strategy will make sure that all local services have audible and visible “next stop” announcements. We will consult this year on improving access to wheelchair space and priority seating for those who rely on them. A series of new bus passenger charters will define precisely what all bus users can expect in their particular areas.
Before covid, the way in which buses were organised made it hard to arrest the decline in bus ridership—a decline that has been going on since the 1960s. The pandemic has brought councils and the industry together, and we want every local transport authority in the country and its bus operators to be in statutory enhanced partnerships or in franchising arrangements throughout. The franchising system is used in London. For example, Transport for London sets the routes and the fares, but that will not be appropriate everywhere. That is why enhanced partnerships will be required, whereby the operators and the councils reach negotiated agreements on how buses will run, with local authorities taking greater responsibility for bus services, whichever solution they choose.
By 30 June this year, we want all local authorities to commit to one of those two options, with the bus operators’ support. We will need that commitment if they are to receive further emergency funding from the covid bus services support grant. I can confidently predict that they will all be on board. Local authorities, in collaboration with operators, will then produce bus service improvement plans by the end of October this year.
These plans are pretty ambitious. By looking at the best bus services around the world and striving to match them, we expect to see how bus priority can best work without increasing congestion. We want to create plans for fares and ticketing, and we want to see how they will deliver urban, town and rural users to the bus network. Future Government financial support will depend on local authorities and operators coming together under an enhanced partnership or franchising agreement. For our part, we will work with councils to introduce bus priority schemes this year, and we will roll out marketing to attract millions of new passengers to the network—people who have never used buses before.
The strategy also sets out our road map to a zero-emission bus fleet. Bus operators have invested £1.3 billion in greener buses over the last five years, which has been supported by £89 million of Government investment, and we will commit to delivering 4,000 zero-emission buses. I expect to release funding for the first all-electric bus city very soon. However, only 2% of England’s bus  fleet is fully zero-emission today, so after our historic move to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, this bus strategy sets out our plans to end the sale of new diesel buses in England too. We have launched a consultation to decide how and when that will happen.
This strategy marks a new beginning for buses. We will not only stop the decline that has been going on historically for decade after decade; we want to reverse it by making buses a natural choice for everyone, not just for those without any other travel options, and we want to put the passenger first. We want to build the stronger road partnerships that I have been talking about by channelling £3 billion into better services. Such a sum has never been seen before in respect of bus investment and will help us to transform buses throughout England and, by doing so, to transform our country, too. I commend this statement to the House.

Jim McMahon: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I also thank those in the bus and local public transport industries for the work they have done, over the course of a very difficult year, to make sure that our country can keep on moving.
This strategy should have been used to revolutionise the bus industry, but I am afraid it lacks ambition and does not even touch the sides of the cuts and rocketing prices that passengers have witnessed over the past decade. It should have been used to ensure that funds were properly directed to deliver a radical transition to a zero-emission fleet—something that the Prime Minister promised more than a year ago—and to create new green jobs in the bus and coach sector, to give operators and manufacturers the boost that they so badly need.
Let us look beyond the headlines. The Secretary of State says that he wants buses to become more frequent, cheaper and greener. First, on buses being more frequent, the reality is that this Government have overseen the loss of 134 million miles of bus routes over the past decade, and some 3,000 local authority-supported bus services have been cut over the same period. In every year since 2010—year on year—passenger journeys outside of London have fallen. It is the Secretary of State’s Government who have made bus journeys less frequent in the first place. How will he ensure, specifically, that there are not just a few more services on routes that are already well served, but a reversal of the 3,000 bus cuts that we have seen over the past decade? How many of the 134 million bus miles lost will be returned by this investment?
On the second test, in respect of buses being cheaper, the Office for National Statistics has reported that in January bus inflation was up by 21% on the previous year. Although a price cap is welcome, the cost of transport is already forcing people off buses. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure not just that fares will not rise disproportionately in future, but that they will be brought down to a reasonable level that people can afford, so that they will choose to travel by bus?
The final test is for transport to be greener. It is more than a year since the Government promised 4,000 zero-emission buses, but they have not even started yet. That is nowhere near ambitious enough when we consider  that there are 32,000 buses in England alone. Even with a one-to-one replacement, that could leave more than 28,000 buses that are not zero-emission. Incidentally, many of them will be serving areas that are being considered for clean air zones because of deadly levels of pollution.
It is a year since we were promised a transport revolution, and it has been a year of reannouncements. Although the pandemic can be blamed for some of the fall in passenger numbers we have seen, the Secretary of State knows full well that the past decade has really weakened the foundations of bus services in this country.
Let me turn to another announcement: council and operator partnerships. Councils throughout the country face a budget black hole of £15 billion, and this announcement, which throws in even more responsibility without funding in place, could weaken their position even further. Like many, I back the extension of London-style franchise powers throughout the country, and I sincerely hope that once the announcement is put into practice, that will be the reality for passengers throughout the country. I also support councils that want to do it themselves, which is why we back the establishment of municipal bus companies—incidentally, something outlawed by this Government in 2017. The Government have indicated that that may well be revisited, but my question to the Secretary of State is, why wait?
It is clear that we drastically need a bus service that is fit for the future, yet until we see those measures on the ground we cannot even begin to claim to be ambitious and to have a green bus strategy that meets the demands of local people and the immediate post-pandemic needs of the industry, or that addresses the huge challenge of stopping climate change and meeting our objectives. The real legacy of this Government is laid bare for all to see: the loss of key routes; rocketing ticket prices; and just 2% of the bus fleet zero-emission vehicles. It is on that record that the Government will be judged.

Grant Shapps: Predictably, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely satisfied. He said that the investment should have been bigger and that we should have been investing more in zero carbon, and he criticised many other aspects of the strategy. In fact, we did not even need to wait for the bus strategy, because he issued his press release to tell us all this ahead of time—before the strategy was even out and before he could possibly have known what was in it. I hope that he has now had the opportunity to read it. If he has, he will have seen that it is an extremely ambitious plan. It is the most ambitious plan to change our buses from any Government right the way back to the 1980s.
It is not as if the 1980s were the start of the decline; I think I am right in saying that we saw a decline in bus ridership from the ’60s onwards, from about 15.5 billion down to 5.5 billion. We know that people have switched to cars in that period of time, which is why this bus strategy is so ambitious and is trying to hold no punches in saying, “We need to realign the way we operate. We need to ensure that buses are more convenient and therefore more reliable. When they are, people are much more likely to take them.” As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that is a formula that has operated very well in London under successive Mayors—although, I  must say, it was expanded under the previous one—and has ensured that buses are clean and reliable, and that people do not even need a timetable. He asked about the reliability and regularity of services; that is what we want to get to. We also would not be putting £3 billion in if we did not expect, as the bus strategy says, to make buses more affordable. It is central to our vision that they are not just practical, but the affordable means of transport.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about greening up the bus network. I am as enthusiastic as him; he knows that I am—I drive an electric car and I want to see our transport system decarbonised. He mentioned that we announced a year ago our ambition to have 4,000 electric buses. He is absolutely right that that is what we wrote in our manifesto. As he would expect, we are delivering on that. The £120 million mentioned in the bus strategy today will go towards the first 800 of those buses. That comes on top of money that has already been invested by the industry in creating more electric buses. We are starting to see those buses on the road, including—I think I am right in saying—a couple of thousand in London, as well as elsewhere in the country. It is starting to happen and we are going to ensure that we meet our manifesto commitment of delivering 4,000 by the end of this Parliament.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned municipal bus services. I am not living in some world where I think there is only one way to do this. That is why we are talking about bus franchising and enhanced partnerships. He will be interested to know that the service in my area, though not a municipal bus operation, is actually run by the local university, the University of Hertfordshire, which owns a bus company called Uno. That is the kind of creative idea that we want to see developed by the national bus strategy. The hon. Gentleman’s local authority, every other local authority and all Members in this House will have the opportunity to ensure that their local area is able to deliver against the bus strategy to improve services for everybody in a way of which he would approve.

Huw Merriman: I warmly welcome the bus strategy, and thank the Secretary of State and the Buses Minister, Baroness Vere, for taking ideas in. The Secretary of State is right to look at best practice by local authorities; he mentioned Brighton. What can we do to ensure that best practice becomes normal practice, and what more investment can be given to local authorities to ensure that there is a buses champion in each local transport authority?

Grant Shapps: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution to this debate, not just with the point he has just made in this Chamber, but in his work with the Transport Committee in pushing for a bus strategy, which we are proud to deliver today. He asked specifically about how he can shape that and about local authorities. We are giving £25 million to local authorities to come up with this plan by 31 October, and we expect every local authority in the country to be part of that. Not only that, but we want Members in this House to work with their local authorities, as I have done with the Beeching reversal plan, which has been very popular. MPs have helped to lead that, and I expect that my hon. Friend will want to do that in his area as well.

Gavin Newlands: Let me start by thanking the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement, and by welcoming both the tacit admission that decades of bus deregulation has failed and the long awaited publication of the national bus strategy for England, which the Prime Minister has billed as a revolution. The only problem is that revolutions are usually fairly quick affairs, whereas we have been waiting a year for this strategy and it might take another year for the various consultations to run their course.
Bus services are, of course, devolved, but as I have said many times in this place, the bus manufacturing sector is on its knees—hundreds of jobs have already gone. We are lucky to have three world-class bus manufacturing companies in Switch, Wrightbus and, in particular, Alexander Dennis, but we have yet to see a penny of the £3 billion committed last spring, and in the past 12 months almost no zero-emission buses have been delivered outside London or Scotland. Very shortly, there will be more zero-emission buses in the town of Kilmarnock than anywhere outside London. The Scottish Government have gone on with the job, with their Scottish ultra-low emission bus schemes, which are extremely popular with both operators and manufacturers. With those schemes having shown just how quickly domestic demand for new, green, British-built vehicles can be stimulated in the about six-month lead time for manufacturing, how will the Government ensure that their commitment to 4,000 green buses actually results in new vehicles being delivered this calendar year, not next year or the year after?
The Prime Minister spoke of getting young people on to buses, an aspiration shared by the Scottish Government, who have just committed to providing free bus transport to all under-22s as part of a plan to encourage lifelong public transport habits—that is action, not words. Will the Minister commit to a similar policy in England? Scotland has led the way in transport decarbonisation in the UK, but we must do more, so will he confirm that 100% of the funding provided for the strategy will be Barnettised? Will he put a precise figure and timescale on it?

Grant Shapps: I welcome what I think was a warm welcome to the idea of the English bus strategy. With all these things, I like to work in co-operation and make them work for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why, for example, I put money into dustcarts in Glasgow that are hydrogen-run. I believe there are a dozen of them doing fantastic work and helping to develop the hydrogen economy. It is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman makes out; we all know that we can produce a hydrogen vehicle, but we also have to produce the hydrogen in a green enough way so that it is not in itself a polluting activity. A whole supply line is required for that, which is why in England I have assigned Teesside as the first hydrogen hub in the country, in order to help bring all those technologies together for all the different forms of transport.
I want to answer one question directly: the Barnett formula is attached to this, and the moneys will flow from that in the normal way.

Imran Ahmad Khan: I warmly welcome the Government’s ambitious new bus strategy, which will be critical in improving West Yorkshire’s connectivity. A key issue facing Wakefield is the lack of  a unified bus franchise; the main bus services to Huddersfield are run by Yorkshire Tiger, a different franchise from Arriva’s Metro franchise, which is the main operator in Wakefield, and this means that tickets are not transferable. I know our fantastic West Yorkshire mayoral candidate Matt Robinson is championing this issue. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outline what steps will be taken to unify these bus franchises and provide West Yorkshire with an integrated, London-style bus system?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as is Matt Robinson. People want to be able to jump on a bus, jump off another one and get on a third one, regardless of which company happens to be running them, and for them to be integrated with rail services and, where relevant, trams as well. That is very much at the heart of our plan. He will be pleased to learn that the bus strategy requires and insists that local authorities come up with a plan that allows people to buy a ticket that they can use many times, with a cap so that they are not overcharged for making many journeys.

Sarah Olney: Like other Members, I welcome the release of “Bus Back Better” and many of the provisions contained in it, but why does the Secretary of State commit himself to review only the part of the Bus Services Act 2017 that prohibits local authority ownership when the strategy highlights so many great examples of good practice? Why can he not go further and scrap those provisions?

Grant Shapps: I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcoming the strategy. She mentions the Bus Services Act 2017 and—we have already had an exchange on this—the extent to which local authorities can run bus services. She should know that I do not mind who runs these services: I just want them to run properly. I want passengers to be able to get the buses when they need them, where they need them, and as efficiently as possible. I will look at all these matters in the context of what delivers the best services, and nothing else.

Matt Western: As chair of the all-party motor group, which includes responsibility for all vehicle manufacturers, I am concerned about the UK bus and coach industry, including companies such as Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus. The sector has seen a loss of 1,000 jobs in the past year. Why has it taken so long to introduce this plan, given that it is almost four years since I drove an electric bus here in Warwick and Leamington at the headquarters of Volvo Bus and Coach Sales? The products were there four years ago—why have they not been adopted earlier?

Grant Shapps: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a keen follower of electric technology, particularly in the heavier vehicles. Although electric cars have proved themselves and we are seeing a large number on the road, bigger vehicles still have issues of weight of battery versus range and therefore availability, so in part it is the technological side that needs resolving. A lot of money is being invested in zero-carbon buses—we are not saying that they have to be electric or hydrogen. I think he will be very pleased to hear the zero-carbon city announcements that I will be making shortly.

Neil Hudson: I very much welcome the bus strategy, which will make a huge difference to rural communities such as Penrith  and The Border. Rural buses are a lifeline to many as they are so important for connecting communities in our large geographical area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that Cumbria County Council makes full use of these Government funds and should work together with bus operators to make more routes viable and improve our local services, thereby assisting in the fight against rural isolation?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He will be interested to hear that part of this strategy is £20 million for rural bus services to try out different approaches. I am pleased to say that of the 17 local authorities that are being provided with some of that money, Cumbria County Council is due to get £1.5 million. I hope that he will work with it to deliver better services for all his constituents.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I welcome any strategy that will continue to support buses. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s mentioning Brighton several times. Brighton & Hove Buses might be in private hands but it is still run with the ethos of a municipal bus service. We would love to have a hydrogen hub in our area, in either the port of Newhaven or Shoreham. Can he reassure me about cross-border services and ensure that there is a duty for local authorities to co-operate so that pricing does not jump about and we can have through pricing between authorities?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman makes good points. I am very keen that crossing over some usually totally invisible line between one local authority and the other does not mean that the service stops and tickets run out. He is absolutely right. I will be paying special attention to that issue in various different local authorities’ plans in October.

James Daly: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Earlier in this Parliament, working with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Conservative colleagues, we secured funding to save the X41 bus service running between Ramsbottom and central Manchester. Will he confirm that Bury Council, Transport for Greater Manchester and bus operators will have access to further moneys and support under this strategy, ensuring that everyone in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington have access to high-class bus services together with an increased number of routes?

Grant Shapps: I can certainly confirm that this bus strategy is very much in line with the type of thing that my hon. Friend and his residents in Ramsbottom and elsewhere want to see happen with the X41 bus. It is very important that we join all this back together, and that people can reliably get these buses in the evening, back out of towns and cities to the more outlying areas. I do not think that he will be disappointed with what he reads today.

Clive Betts: I welcome many aspects of this statement today and say to the Secretary of State that he has effectively delivered the obituary for the failed deregulation of bus services outside London. Given that there will be a local choice between enhanced partnerships and franchising, will he  look at trying to remove some of the time-consuming barriers to getting that franchising that local transport authorities have to go through? Finally, when it comes to reforming the grant system, will he ensure that the money is actually paid to the local transport authorities so that it can be spent in line with local priorities?

Grant Shapps: Let me take that in reverse order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are times when it would make a lot more sense for the money to go to the local authorities. However, for the sake of speed during this crisis, I have not wanted to add further complications, as the bus support grant has been literally a lifeline to various areas. This strategy will enable more work on the suggestions that he makes. With regard to franchising, and on his first point, we can talk about what happened in 1986, some 37 years ago, or we can talk about the future. This bus strategy and I want to talk about the future.

Simon Jupp: I welcome the steps outlined in the bus strategy to help operators and local authorities deliver frequent, more reliable, easier-to-use services. More comprehensive bus services will be needed, especially in rural areas such as East Devon, to protect both socially necessary and economically necessary routes and services. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to help people get the bus to work any time of day?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, particularly in rural areas such as East Devon and in many other parts of the country, the social value of a route is often missed by the current formulas. That is one reason why, with this bus strategy, we have launched a £20 million fund to develop rural services that work better. A lot of that is about making sure that, to have that certainty, the service is more regular and is funded, even at times when it requires public support to be funded. There are other innovative ideas, including, for example, having buses available on demand. People are used to using an app to call a taxi. Why should they not be able to do that to have a bus route go via them in order to get to where they want to go? There are many very innovative ideas, which will be very applicable in rural areas as well.

Ian Paisley Jnr: As the Member of Parliament whose constituency includes the Wrightbus factory, which has carried out pioneering work—it was the first to produce the hydrogen bus for the UK and the battery diesel bus—I have been pushing the Prime Minister on this for some time. I welcome the statement and the plans to buy British-made buses, but there are many shovel-ready projects available for zero-emission buses across the UK. Under the current plans, the roll-out will not be until 2022? What are we waiting for? Why cannot we get on with it? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell his officials that they have a mission to get this money out the door, to get it into shovel-ready projects, and to buy British buses without any further delay.

Grant Shapps: I share the hon. Gentleman’s impatience, but the money is for this year. That £120 million for those zero-carbon buses is to be spent on the introduction of those first buses for this year, so I do not recognise any particular reason to delay. We are in touch with all the bus manufacturers, and we wish them well in their progress.

Richard Holden: I warmly welcome the national bus strategy as another key spoke of the levelling up agenda alongside lifelong learning, the levelling-up fund and transport more generally. This is really about delivery, not dogma, and I am glad to see the options available for local authorities as well as the integrated and social nature of some of the funding available. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will look at services in places in my constituency such as Burnhope and Weardale, which really need extra bus services later in the evenings, for potential pilot schemes?

Grant Shapps: One of the biggest points about buses is that people want to be able to get them in the evening and at the weekend. When people go somewhere to meet with somebody—those days will come again—buses should not just stop so they cannot get a bus home. That is exactly when they are needed to run. There is new hope for my hon. Friend’s constituents in Burnhope and Weardale in this bus strategy.

Stephanie Peacock: Spending on bus services in London is £60 higher per person than it is in South Yorkshire, where we have seen funding fall by 40% in the last decade. Any strategy is welcome, but what we really need is investment. What funding can our region expect and by when?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is almost the fundamental point of the strategy. We recognise that London gets fantastic bus services, and we want the rest of the country to get some of it as well. The share is of £3 billion. I cannot give her the precise figures today, but I look forward to her local authority’s doing the work and coming back to me. By October, we should have numbers to talk about.

Katherine Fletcher: I am hugely excited about the opportunities that today’s announcement bring. However, when I have previously shared initiatives from the Department for Transport, the comments page underneath has said something along the lines of, “I’d settle for a bus from Hesketh Bank to Tarleton.” Will the Secretary of State give me and the people of South Ribble the confidence that communities, businesses, educational establishments and industry will be able to input their needs to transform Lancashire’s bus services?

Grant Shapps: That is absolutely right. I will say how I want this to work. I want Members in this House to have real input into it. Therefore, as a plan is being developed by a local authority, MPs should be on the authority’s shoulders, looking over and making sure that the new business park is included—or indeed anybody who lives in Hesketh Bank and Tarleton—to ensure that they get their services. It will be for local Members to ensure that that happens.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The north-east has suffered from under-investment in transport for too long. In 2019, it was revealed that over £3,600 of spend was planned per head for London and just over £500 per head for the north-east. The Prime Minister has said the strategy is an act of levelling up,  but we know that phrase is a smokescreen for gifting money to areas that do not need it but happen to have a Tory MP. Will the Secretary of State tell us what criteria will be applied to ensure that this £3 billion is shared fairly among our regions?

Grant Shapps: First of all, I agree, and I just said, that London has been getting a very nice bite of the cherry with its buses, and we want the rest of the country to get the same. That is the point of launching this strategy. I am afraid that I do not recognise the second point that the hon. Member made. She may be getting confused by the fact that hard-working great MPs who lobby for their local areas may just end up being successful in bringing services to their area. I have no doubt that she will join her area to that list as well.

Kevan Jones: Many rural communities rely on bus services provided by small, often family-run businesses such as Stanley Travel in my constituency, who have found it hard during covid because they do not have the resource to capital that some larger companies have. What specific help will be available to such companies to ensure that they not only survive but that those important local bus services continue?

Grant Shapps: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As ever with the coronavirus, those small companies have had a tough time. It is worth mentioning that we put £240 million, and then £27 million a week, into supporting buses, so we have been pumping in a lot of money without which those services would not have been able to survive at all. Of course, individual smaller companies will have had access to things like furlough. The strategy overall is the sunlight at the end of this, because for the first time there will be a proper strategy that he and his local authority will be able to oversee. I am sure that there will be great opportunities for some of the smaller bus companies as well.

James Wild: Buses provide a lifeline for people in North West Norfolk, but rural areas have seen greater reductions in services. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Norfolk gets a fair share of this welcome new funding to not only rebuild but enhance services, with later buses and new links, as well as capital for improvements to speed up journeys alongside the coast?

Grant Shapps: Yes I will. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will fight for his constituents and his area. By hooking up with the local authority and working with it, we will have a very good look at the investment strategy that it puts together to ensure that he enjoys much better services in the future than his constituents have in the past.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We will have a short suspension to make arrangements for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

[1st Allocated Day]

Second Reading

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Home Secretary, I want to remind the House of what was said earlier regarding the Sarah Everard case. Charges have now been brought in that case. The sub judice resolution does not apply formally when the House is legislating. However, I would urge all Members to exercise caution and not say anything about the detail of the case or the identity of those against whom charges have been brought that might affect any subsequent court case.

Priti Patel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Just one week after celebrating the achievement of women around the world on International Women’s Day, I would like to open this debate by once again expressing my sadness at the horrific developments in the Sarah Everard case. My heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with Sarah, her family and friends at this unbearable time. This is also a stark moment to reflect on what more we can do to protect women and girls against crime, and the events of the last few days have rightly ignited anger at the danger posed to women by predatory men—an anger I feel as strongly as anyone.
This Government were elected just over a year ago on a clear manifesto commitment to support the police and to keep our country safe. It is vital that we continue to deliver on that promise to the British people, and our commitment to law and order is having a real impact across the country. There are already over 6,600 more police officers in our communities, thanks to the unprecedented campaign to recruit an additional 20,000 more police officers. Our crackdown on county line drug gangs is delivering results, particularly in London, the west midlands and Merseyside. The police have made more than 3,400 arrests, shut down more than 550 deal lines and safeguarded more than 770 vulnerable people. Last year, we saw the UK’s biggest ever law enforcement operation strike a blow against organised crime, with over 1,000 arrests, £54 million of criminal cash seized, and 77 firearms and over two tonnes of drugs seized. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will go further still in our mission to back the police, to make our communities safe and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
We ask our brave police officers to do the most difficult of jobs—they run towards danger to keep us all safe—and that is why I have worked closely with the Police Federation in developing this Bill. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the Police Federation, John Apter, for his constructive way of working since I became Home Secretary, admirably fighting for his members every single day. He has voiced his members’ concerns to me directly, and I have acted upon them.
This Bill will enshrine in law a requirement to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant, which sets out our commitment to enhance support and protection for those working within or retired from policing roles,  whether paid or as volunteers, and their families. The covenant will initially focus on physical protection and support for families, officers and staff, and their health and wellbeing, with a duty to report in place to ensure parliamentary scrutiny.
Despite all that they do, emergency workers are still subject to violence and abuse. The statistics paint an alarming picture. There were more than 30,000 assaults on police officers in the year to March 2020, and over the past year we have all seen the reports of people deliberately coughing at our emergency workers, claiming to have coronavirus and threatening to infect them. There have been too many disgusting examples of police officers and ambulance drivers being spat at and violently attacked as they go out to work day after day to make sure that the rest of us are safe and cared for.

Gareth Johnson: This Bill doubles the maximum sentence for an assault on emergency workers. Does the Home Secretary therefore share my astonishment at the irony that the Labour party will now be voting against that provision?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having personally spent much time with our frontline officers, the very people who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe, I think that is a really stark point, and a reminder of which party is backing the police and which party simply is not.

Chris Bryant: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Priti Patel: I will in just a second.
Having personally spent time with those on the frontline, I have also seen the impact of these incidents on officers and on their families. We cannot tolerate such acts, which is why the punishment must fit the crime, and the Bill will double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment.

Chris Bryant: I urge the Home Secretary not to play party politics with this particular bit. I introduced, as a private Member’s Bill, the legislation that she is acting on, and at the time I argued very strongly in favour of two years being the maximum sentence. I was dissuaded by the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who is now the Foreign Secretary; by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Home Secretary; and by a lot of Conservative MPs, who did not want to support the legislation at all.
I need to be persuaded that the Government have used the legislation that is on the statute book at present. For instance, the Home Secretary refers, quite rightly, to people spitting at police officers. It is disgusting and it is a form of assault, but unfortunately the sentencing guidelines still have not been updated since the introduction of my legislation to make sure that spitting is an aggravating factor and will be treated as an offence.

Priti Patel: There are many important points that I would be happy to debate about the police covenant and giving our police officers—the frontline men and women who keep us safe day in, day out—the protection that they and their family members deserve. The hon. Gentleman is right about the sentencing structure and  guidance, but we have had support from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the assaults that I have referred to, particularly over the last few months in relation to coronavirus, when we have seen spitting and assaults on officers.
This Bill is a criminal justice Bill as much as a policing Bill. It is an end-to-end Bill to ensure that the sentence fits the assault and the crime. The Bill will double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment, recognising that our officers and emergency workers should rightly be protected. Having spent much time with those on the frontline and seen the impact and the sheer volume of these incidents, I think it is right that we have that provision in this Bill.
The Government fully recognise the professionalism and skills of our highly trained police officers, and that includes the specialism of police drivers. Too often, they are driving in high-pressure situations pursuing suspects on the road while responding urgently to incidents. Through this Bill, we will introduce a new test to assess a police officer’s standard of driving. Should an officer be involved in a road traffic incident, this new test will allow the courts to judge their standard of driving against that of a competent and careful police constable with the same level of training, rather than that of a member of the public, which is how it stands at present.
The Government back the police and will never allow those with an extreme political agenda, such as those calling for the defunding or abolition of the police, to weaken our resolve when it comes to protecting the police. We back the police and will do everything we possibly can to make our community safer.
I have heard the call of the British public for safer communities, and that means cracking down on violent crime, which has a corrosive impact on towns and cities across the country. That includes gangs peddling drugs, as a result of which law-abiding citizens live in fear and, tragically, teenage children are stabbed to death. This senseless violence has absolutely no place in our society.

Toby Perkins: I support entirely the need to make sure that sentences fit the crime, but is not the reality that courts have huge backlogs and are reluctant to jail people who should be in jail, because they know that our prisons are overcrowded? Does not this Government’s failure on courts and prisons massively undermine what the right hon. Lady says about sentencing?

Priti Patel: Absolutely not. The Government are determined in their resolve—through this legislation, and delivering on our manifesto commitments—to bring in sentences that fit the crime. This is an end-to-end criminal justice Bill. If the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members listen to this afternoon’s debate, they will hear about the measures that are being introduced, and about the Government’s longer-term response. That includes the wider work that the Government are undertaking with the courts and the CPS; the changes that we need to make not just to sentencing, but to our laws; and the support that we are giving to our police.

Edward Leigh: We do not want to waste police time. Over the years I have formed an unlikely alliance with people such as Peter Tatchell, particularly with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and  Policing Act 2014, to ensure that we enshrine in law your ability, Madam Deputy Speaker, my ability, or anybody’s ability to insult people and cause offence. Thinking particularly of clause 59, will my right hon. Friend assure me that nothing in the Bill will have a chilling effect on the right to debate and, if necessary, cause offence?

Priti Patel: When it comes to freedom of expression, my right hon. Friend knows my views and those of this Government. Prior to taking interventions I spoke about the corrosive impact of violent crime across our towns and cities. Tragically, too many young children—teenagers—have been stabbed to death in towns and cities of the UK. Such senseless violence has no place in our society. I have met too many mothers whose children have been murdered on the streets of our city, and I have seen the raw pain and distress of parents grieving for their child, and the utter devastation they are forced to endure.
We are proud that this Government have put more police officers on the beat, but tough law enforcement can be only part of the solution. We must do much more to understand and address the factors that drive serious violence, so that we can prevent it from happening in the first place. Through the Bill, we will introduce a serious violence duty, which will work to bring public bodies, including the police and local authorities, to work together as one, to share data and information across our communities, and work together to save lives. I thank many of my predecessors for their work on that, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid).
I make no apology for finding new ways to protect our communities and save the lives of our young people. Whenever lives are tragically lost as the result of serious violence, we must do everything we can to learn from what has happened. Homicides involving offensive weapons such as knives make up a large and growing proportion of all homicides, yet no legal requirement is currently placed on local agencies to understand what has happened after each incident. We are therefore introducing the requirement for a formal review to be considered, where a victim was aged 18 or over and the events surrounding their death involved the use of an offensive weapon. The new reviews will ensure that we learn lessons from such cases, and produce recommendations to improve our response to serious violence.
Every time someone carries a blade or a weapon, they risk ruining their own lives and those of others. Every stabbing leaves a trail of misery and devastation in its wake. Our new serious violence reduction orders will help the police to protect our communities better, by giving officers the power to stop and search those already convicted of crimes involving knives and offensive weapons. The orders will help to tackle prolific and higher-risk offenders, and help to protect individuals from exploitation by criminal gangs. That is exactly what I mean when I say that we are making our communities safer.
There will be concerns about disproportionality, but our aim is for these orders to enable the police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in relation to known knife carriers. Unfortunately, data from 2018-19 indicate that the homicide risk for young black people is 24 times higher than that for young white people. That is appalling. As long as young black men are dying and their families  are disproportionately suffering, we cannot stand back, and I cannot apologise for backing the police when it comes to stop and search. The Government will work with the police to gather data on the impact of the orders to deliver real and lasting results.
Victims and witnesses must have the full protection of the law while the police conduct their investigations. We will reform the pre-charge bail regime to encourage the police to impose pre-charge bail, with appropriate conditions where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, including where there is a real risk to victims, witnesses and the public. We hope that that will provide reassurance and additional protection for alleged victims, for example in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse.

Peter Kyle: Since the Home Secretary’s Government first promised a victims Bill, there have been 1 million sexual offences and 350,000 rapes. This Bill is 300 pages long and barely mentions women or children. The explanatory notes do not mention women or girls once. Will she get to her feet and apologise finally for missing this fantastic opportunity to put victims at the heart of our criminal justice system?

Priti Patel: I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition when it comes to supporting victims. As the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on victims, I and this Government have absolutely put victims at the heart of all our work, as have my predecessors in all their work.

Peter Kyle: Asleep on the job.

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman can yell from the Back Benches, but it is important to remember that when it comes to protecting victims, there are many victims of different offences and different crimes. I think he and all Members of this House should recognise that this Bill will absolutely provide additional protections for victims in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse and many other cases.
These reforms will be named Kay’s law in memory of Kay Richardson, who was tragically killed following the release of her husband under investigation, rather than on pre-charge bail, despite evidence of previous domestic abuse. It is impossible to imagine the impact of such an horrific crime on the victim’s loved ones, and we all have a responsibility to do all we can to prevent more victims and more families from suffering as they have. That is the point and the purpose of this Bill—it is an end-to-end Bill.
Before Opposition Members start to prejudge any aspect of this Bill and this Government’s work on victims, there will be plenty of time to debate this Bill. There will also be plenty of time to debate the role of victims and how the Government are absolutely supporting victims.
An essential responsibility and a duty on us all is protecting our children. I am truly appalled and shocked by each crime and every case of hurt and harm against young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It is impossible to comprehend the motivation of those who perpetrate offences against children, and we have been reviewing the law in this area carefully to ensure that  any changes we make are the right ones. Through this Bill, I intend to extend the scope of the current legislation that criminalises sexual activity with a child under the age of 18 by people who hold defined positions of trust to include faith leaders, sports coaches and others who similarly coach, teach, train, supervise or instruct a sport or religion on a regular basis.
This issue has some brilliant and long-standing champions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who even throughout her recent cancer treatment worked with me to ensure that we address this significant issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who continues to stand by the many victims who were abused as youngsters and who were failed and ignored by those who should have supported them. I also thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for her tireless work on this issue.
Through this Bill, we will also introduce an important measure to help bring closure to families whose loved ones have gone missing. The House will know the horrific case of Keith Bennett and the struggles his family have gone through to find his body since his murder. In 2017, the police believed they had a further lead when it came to light that Ian Brady had committed papers to secure storage before his death, but a gap in the law meant that the police were unable to get a search warrant to seize those papers.
I know this is an important issue—indeed, it has been raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others. I am therefore introducing new powers enabling officers to seize evidence that they believe may help to locate human remains outside of criminal proceedings, such as in missing persons cases, suicides and homicide cases where a suspect is known but cannot be convicted, such as where the suspect themselves has died. As I said to Keith’s brother, Alan, when I met him recently, I am absolutely determined to give the police all the powers they need to access any evidence that could help them to bring some closure in cases such as Keith’s. While I cannot guarantee that a loved one will be found, I can make sure that families are provided with every avenue that our legal system will allow in the pursuit of justice. This is why we emphasise the need to make our communities safer, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
The right to protest peacefully is a cornerstone of our democracy and one that this Government will always defend, but there is, of course, a balance to be struck between the rights of the protester and the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives. The current legislation the police use to manage protests, the Public Order Act 1986, was enacted over 30 years ago. In recent years, we have seen a significant change of protest tactics, with protesters exploiting gaps in the law which have led to disproportionate amounts of disruption. Last year, we saw XR blocking the passage of an ambulance and emergency calls, gluing themselves to a train during rush hour, blocking airport runways, preventing hundreds of hard-working people from going to work. Finally, I would like to gently remind the House that on one day last year many people across the country were prevented from reading their morning newspapers due to the tactics of some groups—a clear attempt to limit a free and fair press, a cornerstone of our democracy and society.
The Bill will give the police the powers to take a more proactive approach in tackling dangerous and disruptive protests. The threshold at which the police can impose conditions on the use of noise at a protest is rightfully high. The majority of protesters will be able to continue to act and make noise as they do now without police intervention, but we are changing it to allow the police to put conditions on noisy protests that cause significant disruption to those in the vicinity. As with all our proposals, the police response will still need to be proportionate. The statutory offence of public nuisance replaces the existing common law offence. Our proposals follow the recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2015. The threshold for committing an offence is high, with any harm needing to affect the public or a cross-section of the public and not just an individual.
We must give the courts the tools to deal effectively with the desecration of war memorials and other statues. Through the Bill, we will toughen the law where there is criminal damage to a memorial by removing the consideration of monetary value of damage. Those changes will allow the court to consider the emotional and sentimental impact, not just financial, so that the sentence can reflect the severity of harm caused. For what it is worth, that does not just mean statues. It will cover a range of memorials with low monetary but high sentimental value, for example gravestones, war memorials, roadside tributes to people killed in car crashes and the memorials to people who have been murdered, such as the Stephen Lawrence memorial. I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for their important work on this issue.
I am also clear that no one should have to put up with disturbances and disruptions on their doorstep. Unauthorised encampments can create significant challenges for local authorities, and cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. As we pledged in our manifesto, we will make it a criminal offence to live in a vehicle on land without permission and we will give the police the power to seize vehicles if necessary. I can assure the House that the new offence has been framed in such a way to ensure that the rights of ramblers and others to enjoy the countryside are not impacted.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: What consideration has the right hon. Lady given to the rights of generations of Travellers and Gypsies, who have often been around longer than some of our property laws, who might want to pull up on a roadside for a night? What consideration of their rights has been given in the Bill, which will automatically criminalise them?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was an extensive public consultation on this issue and all those points were considered at the time.

Aaron Bell: The Home Secretary may remember coming to visit Wolstanton Marsh in my constituency during the election campaign. Residents around Wolstanton have long suffered as a result of the unauthorised encampments on the marsh. Will she join me in welcoming what the Bill will do for them? This is a manifesto pledge delivered.

Priti Patel: I recall a visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is right. Many colleagues, and many members of the public through the public consultation, made the  point that unauthorised encampments cause misery and harm to those in the local communities affected by them. There have been many discussions with colleagues across the House on this point, and with local authorities, which more often than not bear the brunt of the costs and consequences, alongside the police.
In September, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor published a White Paper setting out our vision for a smarter approach to sentencing, and now we are introducing legislation to establish this in law. We need a system that is robust enough to keep the worst offenders behind bars for as long as possible, but agile enough to give offenders a fair start on their road to rehabilitation. Sexual and violent offenders must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes, helping to protect the public and give victims confidence that justice has been served. These offences are committed predominantly against women. Through this Bill, rapists and other serious sexual predators sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of four years or more will henceforth serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody. Rapists sentenced to life imprisonment will similarly serve longer in custody before they are considered for release on licence. The Bill also strengthens the framework for the management of sex offenders. In particular, we are legislating so that courts can attach positive requirements to a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual risk order so that, for example, a perpetrator can be required to attend a behavioural change programme.
The measures in this Bill build on those in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which will return to this House after Easter. Among the changes we have brought forward in the Lords is a new offence of non-fatal strangulation and the criminalising of threats to disclose intimate images. I know that these additions to the Bill will be welcomed by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). We have had discussions already this afternoon about violence against women and girls and what more we can do; these measures are fundamental to restoring confidence in the criminal justice system.
We also recognise that the reoffending rate for children is high, and that is why we are taking forward measures to provide courts with stronger alternatives to custody. In the Bill, we are providing custodial sentencing options for the most serious crimes, alongside alternatives that will allow youth offenders to be effectively managed and rehabilitated in the community. That will ensure that judges and magistrates are able to make the most appropriate decisions in the best interests of the child and of the public. In recognition of the fact that children now in custody are much more likely to have complex needs, we will introduce measures to enable the trialling of secure schools. They will be schools with security rather than prisons with education, and they will have education, wellbeing and purposeful activity at their heart.
The courts play a fundamental role in our criminal justice system. During the pandemic, we have seen the benefits of enabling participation in proceedings remotely or by live video or audio link. We want to put these temporary provisions on a permanent footing, giving judges better options to support the effective and efficient running of their courts and underpinning the principle of open justice. Our aim is to modernise our courts and  tribunals so that there are more opportunities to attend and observe hearings remotely, shorter waiting times and less unnecessary travel. I can assure the House that these advantages will never be taken from the right to a full hearing in court. This will always be available where needed, and where the court considers it to be in the interests of justice. Trials will continue to take place in court. We also want to further improve accessibility to our justice system for people with disabilities.

Peter Kyle: At the moment, if somebody suffers a sexual assault or rape, they will wait two years before they have their moment in court. Will the Home Secretary agree to amend the Bill so that people who are victims of rape or sexual assault will be fast-tracked straight into the court system and will no longer have to wait two years?

Priti Patel: It is absolutely right that we look at every single measure and approach to ensure that victims of rape receive justice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the rape review is taking place and will soon be published.
We want to improve accessibility to our justice system for people with disabilities. Reasonable adjustments can be made for most people with disabilities to enable them to complete jury service. However, the law has to date prevented deaf people who require the services of a sign language interpreter from having an interpreter in a jury deliberation room with them. We are changing that to ensure that all deaf individuals are able to serve as jurors unless the circumstances of a particular case mean that it would not be in the interests of justice for them to do so.
As I said at the beginning, this Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to keep our country safe. That is what the British people rightly expect, and that is what this Bill will deliver, by supporting the police, by preventing and cutting crime and by restoring confidence in the criminal justice system, because giving people the security they need to live their lives as they choose is an essential part of our freedom. As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, we will build back safer and increase the safety and security of our citizens. This Bill will enable us to do exactly that, and I commend it to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I should inform Members that we will start with a time limit of five minutes, but it will go down very quickly to three minutes.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The House meets today in the shadow of the tragic loss of Sarah Everard, and I know the whole House will be united in sending our thoughts to her loved ones at this time of unimaginable pain. In an incredibly moving tribute, her family said:
“She was strong and principled and a shining example to us all. We are very proud of her and she brought so much joy to our lives.”
Sarah was just walking home at night—a freedom that sounds so simple, it should be unquestionable. But in recent days, we have heard extraordinarily powerful testimony yet again from women across the country  about the dangers they face all too regularly—women speaking of suffering vile harassment on the streets, being told to walk with keys between their fingers to protect themselves and being told they should stay at home. It is not women and girls who should be changing their behaviour because of danger. We must change as a society, and as men in particular, we must do better by listening and, most importantly, acting.
I want to turn immediately to the distressing scenes we saw at Clapham. I share the anger there is about the policing of this. Deep and profound lessons need to be learned, and there must be change. People should have been able to mark this moment peacefully and safely. We need to find a way for people to show solidarity safely and in a covid-secure way. As I mentioned in response to the statement earlier today, the Mayor of London has shown leadership on this, asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct an independent investigation alongside the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Saturday’s event was not a protest; it was a vigil. But there is no doubt that it brings into sharp focus the proposed measures in this Bill about curtailing the right to protest—the right to give public expression to deep feeling and the right to campaign for change. The scenes from Saturday should be a red warning signal to the House that rushing through ill-judged and ill-thought-out restrictions on the right to protest would be a profound mistake that would have long-lasting consequences and do great damage to our democracy. The right to protest is a cornerstone of that democracy.
On our statute book, we already have the Public Order Act 1986, together with other existing powers to police protests. It is of course right that protests should be peaceful and legitimate—nobody would suggest otherwise—but the Bill significantly expands the conditions that can be imposed on protests. Unbelievably, it includes
“the noise generated by persons taking part”
causing people “serious unease” as a reason to warrant police-imposed conditions. I do not know about Government Members, but the protests that I have been to have certainly generated a lot of noise.
There is also a penalty in the Bill for someone who breaches a police-imposed condition on a protest when they “ought to have known” that the condition existed. That would have the effect of criminalising people who unwittingly breach conditions.

Jacob Young: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that no one should be able to block an ambulance from crossing a road or bridge, and that no one should be able to block a printing press from printing newspapers? If he does agree, why will he not vote for the Bill?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Because the existing laws deal with those issues. The Conservative party is not making the case for the additional powers.
The right to protest to those in power—including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who waves his Order Paper at me—is extremely precious. I declare an interest as a proud trade unionist and refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support from the Unite union and the GMB.  Whether it is our trade unions or another group that wants to make its views known loudly in our streets, we curtail their ability to do so at our peril. The right to protest is one of our proudest democratic traditions, and that this Government seek to attack it is to their great shame. Our existing laws on protest strike a careful balance between legitimate rights and the need to keep order. Our laws on protest do not, and never should, seek to shield those in power from public criticism and public protest. We on the Opposition Benches will oppose a Bill that puts at risk the whole right to protest, hard-won by previous generations, that is part of the fabric of British democracy. In seeking to preserve the right to protest, we on these Benches stand in a long tradition of British democracy. It is this Government who seek to undermine those traditions.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of parts 3 and 4 of the Bill undermines victims, the police force and the whole point of what the Government are trying to do to reform our criminal justice system and make it work for the people? The Government should withdraw parts 3 and 4 and get on with deliberating on some of the detail that could be half good.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Parts of the Bill could have been removed and we could have had a cross-party discussion on making the rest of it work. The Government have failed to take that approach.

James Gray: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that for him to vote against the entire Bill, much of which is extremely good and much of which the Labour party has campaigned for for many years, because he believes that there may be some curtailment of free speech—I do not believe that is the case—in one small part of the Bill, would be to throw the baby out with the bath water? Surely that is the wrong thing to do.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will come to other concerning aspects of the Bill in a moment, but it says a great deal that when I am talking about the great British tradition of the right to protest, it is a Conservative Member of Parliament who stands up to challenge it. That is quite remarkable.
Let me turn to what is needed to address the appalling issue of violence against women and girls. To our shame as a country, we see unacceptable levels of female homicides at the hands of men every year. Labour is committed to working on a cross-party basis to bring forward additional protections; to deliver on the inadequate sentencing for domestic homicides; and to address unacceptable and intimidating street harassment. Labour is committed on stalking, on improving rights for victims of crime, on better domestic abuse services and on recognising misogyny as a hate crime.
There are wider issues, too. On 29 January, I wrote to the Government, together with the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); the shadow Housing Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire); the shadow Minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); and the shadow Minister for victims and youth justice, my hon. Friend  the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). We raised the awful practice of sex for rent—people coerced into providing sex in lieu of payment—and put forward proposals. We wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; not one of them has even bothered to reply. That shows that this is a Government who too often like to talk tough but who fail to take the action needed. In its current form, the Bill does not meet the ambition of the time and will be a terrible missed opportunity.

Peter Kyle: As a signatory to that letter, campaigning on this means a great deal to me. Actually, I contacted the two previous Home Secretaries and Amber Rudd, when she was Home Secretary, set a workstream up to tackle this issue. It has been cancelled. We have been trying very long and very hard to give protection to those 30,000 women every year who are propositioned for sex in return for rent. Is it not time that this cross-party offer is taken up?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolutely. The cancellation of that workstream is entirely wrong. I say to the Home Secretary that the offer is open on that. The letter has been sent to the Home Office; reply and engage with us on the Opposition Benches.

Priti Patel: I am actually not aware of that workstream being cancelled or the letter, so I would be more than happy to come back to the House and follow up with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle).

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful for that, and when the Home Secretary returns to the Home Office, I would be grateful if she could dig out the letter and respond. That would be extremely useful—it was sent on 29 January, for reference.

Chris Bryant: As my right hon. Friend knows, I, and I think we as a party, support clause 2, because we believe that emergency workers should not be subject to the terrible assaults that there have been over the years. But this does pose a problem, because a lot of women who work in shops are subjected to exactly the same problems and are often terrified to go into work. We had a terrible incident in the Co-op in Penygraig less than a year ago. Is there not a job of work that we need to do to make sure that all workers, but in particular women workers working in shops, are also protected?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I will come on to that issue in a moment, when I have some proposals to put forward.
Ministers risk sending out an awful message on the level of importance that they attach to violent crime. The Government want a maximum penalty of 10 years for damage to statues. No Government should ever send out a signal that the safety of a statue carries greater importance in our laws than the safety of women, but, as currently drafted, this Bill would allow someone to receive a sentence of up to 10 years for attacking the statue of a slave trader when rape sentences start at five years. That does not reflect the priorities of the people.

Chris Philp: The shadow Home Secretary should well know and should honestly tell the House that the maximum sentence for rape is life.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I asked the Home Secretary earlier in the statement to tell me how many people convicted of rape were actually sentenced to life imprisonment, and she could not answer the question. The answer is hardly any. Ninety-nine per cent. of reported rapes do not even get close to a court, and then we hear the Minister trying to come to the Dispatch Box to boast about the rape statistics—absolutely appalling.

Peter Kyle: My right hon. Friend and the whole Labour party and Opposition agree that protecting private and public property is incredibly important, but it is about balance. If an angry mob throws a statue into water and then turns around and throws a woman or a child into water, can he tell us which one, if the Bill passes and goes into statute, gets the longer sentence?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance that is being put on statues over women, and the Government should be ashamed. This comes at a time when—

Steve Brine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: In one moment, because I need to deal with the issue of the rape statistics that has been raised. We are seeing fewer people being prosecuted and convicted for rape than at any time since records began, and that is at a time when the number of reported rapes is increasing. What message do the Government think that that sends to victims about coming forward? As I said to the Minister—he is a Justice Minister; he really should be concentrating on trying to deal with this problem—99% of reported rapes do not even get near a court. That is absolutely shameful. I say to the Home Secretary: think again about the Government’s priorities on this, make changes, such as end-to-end support for victims pre-trial and post-trial, and fast-track these trials through our system, instead of the two years that there have to be at the moment.

Steve Brine: If the desecration of our war memorials does not move the right hon. Gentleman, can I check this one with him? Two of my constituents lost their daughter when somebody impaired by the incorrect use of prescription drugs careered across the carriageway and hit her car head-on at high speed, killing her outright. In part 5 of the Bill, on road traffic, we introduce clause 64, on increased penalties for causing death by dangerous driving. Does the shadow Home Secretary support that and will he vote for it?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I do absolutely support that and I will come to it in a moment but, to deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he seemed to imply that I did not understand the value of war memorials. I absolutely do. The difference is that this Bill has now been extended to every form of memorial, including statues of slave traders. It really sums up the problem with the Government’s approach. If they genuinely wanted to introduce proportionate measures to protect war memorials, they could have done so and not introduced the measures that they actually have.
I come to the sentencing elements of the Bill. It is of course right to extend whole-life orders to cover the premeditated murder of a child. The tragic murder of Ellie Gould on 3 May 2019 highlights the failure of the justice system to impose strict enough sentences on those who murder in a domestic setting and the issue of the age of the killer. But this measure is insufficient. The current approach to sentencing seems to forget the context in which many female victims are killed—in the home, with a weapon taken from that location. The minimum tariff in such cases is 15 years, but it is 25 if the weapon is brought to the scene of the crime. That is a systemic problem; violence against women and girls seems to be seen as less serious than other forms of violence. This has to be addressed.
The Opposition also say that tougher sentencing on its own is not enough. We know that wider change across our society is needed, and we know that the Government who have decimated our public services over the past 11 years have totally lost sight of addressing the causes of crime as well, with the sadly predictable consequences of rising violent crime in every single police force area of England and Wales. The Bill is shamefully short of measures to address the unacceptable violence women and girls face. In that, it fails woefully to meet the urgent need for change.

James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my constituent, Ellie Gould, and her appalling murder two years ago. He is right to say that we campaigned for the issue of premeditation, as proved by taking a weapon to the scene, to be removed. I hope therefore that he will vote for the Bill this evening. There is one counter-argument to that, however. Abused women at home may well defend themselves with a knife, bottle or other weapon at home, and if that were to happen and it became premeditated, that defence would be lost.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman identifies a complexity, but I think he agrees with me that that difference in the law—the 15 and 25-year tariffs—is not justifiable as it stands and needs to be equalised.
The need for overdue action brings me to elements of the Bill that have taken too long to introduce, but which we welcome. My hon. Friends, often working across the parties, have campaigned passionately on important issues and they have secured change. It is welcome that the Government have finally brought before Parliament the long-awaited legislation to increase the maximum sentence for assault on emergency service workers to up to two years in prison. I want to pay special tribute to the tireless work of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in securing this change. They have been campaigning since 2018. Indeed, on 27 April 2018, when the matter of two-year sentences was considered, the then Minister said that
“it would begin to create the kind of situation that exists in Russia, which I hope will never exist in the UK”.
He went on to say that such sentences would create
“a category of a superior form of human being with an entitlement to a quite separate form of protection.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1193.]
Those comments were, frankly, deplorable and the Government’s conversion to the two-year penalty is to be welcomed.
The pandemic has been a powerful reminder, not that one should be needed, of the extraordinary bravery and commitment that our frontline emergency workers have shown throughout. They have put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe day in, day out, even at the very height of the first wave, when tests and PPE were so shamefully hard to come by. Despite that work, emergency service workers have been subjected to a rising number of attacks in this past year, with a 31% increase in attacks compared with in 2019.

Stuart Anderson: Recently in Wolverhampton, two ambulance staff were stabbed. I am watching you go through this Bill saying that you welcome and agree with so many things, so why on earth have you asked your party to vote against it? It just makes no sense.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I do not want to stop the debate for this, but you do not call the person who is speaking “you”. “You” means the Chair; the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Gentleman. I call the right hon. Gentleman.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Yes, I was not aware of your position on the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not finished my speech yet, so the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) will just have to wait for me to complete my argument.
As welcome as this measure is, the Labour party is clear that it does not go far enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, we need to consider the workers on the frontline of the pandemic who should also be given that level of protection. First, it does not cover the whole of the NHS family, so we are calling for protections to be extended to social care workers as well. Throughout the pandemic, the range of frontline service workers who put themselves at risk to serve our community has been clear.

Toby Perkins: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) has actually hit on something that might be helpful to the House. There are many aspects of the Bill that we all agree on. If only the really divisive aspects that the Home Secretary has put in were removed, could not the whole House get behind supporting our police, rather than going through the mess that we have in front of us today?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolutely. The Government could press pause on the Bill and bring the whole House together.
Research has shown that, during the pandemic alone, one in six of our shop workers have been abused on every shift, with 62% of UK shop workers experiencing verbal abuse and almost being threatened by a customer. There have been awful examples of attacks on other frontline workers, who have been spat at, punched, verbally abused and intimidated. Labour is calling for wider measures to protect the pandemic heroes, extending protections to shop workers as well as other frontline workers. There is widespread support for this, with the additional protection for shop workers supported by organisations such as the Federation of Independent Retailers and chief executive officers from a number of  major retailers, including Aldi, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, McColl’s, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and WHSmith.
I would also like to mention the work of the USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—which has been passionate in campaigning for its members to receive these vital protections and has generated well over 100,000 signatories on petition. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to frontline workers for putting themselves at risk to keep our country running. We should repay some of that debt with decent legal protection as well as decent pay.

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is making, in many parts of his speech, a very strong case for supporting the Bill, but he started by saying that he was not going to support the Bill because of one particular element. The Opposition were going to abstain at the end of last week; then they shifted their position. May I gently suggest to him that a decent way of doing this would be, if necessary, to abstain today, debate the amendments and decide on Third Reading whether the Government have moved at all? Would that not be more logical?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will always bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s guidance on parliamentary procedure, but we took a final decision to vote against this Bill. Let me say to Government Members that I will make it clear when I agree with the Government on something, but as I move on to other aspects of my speech, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there are other parts of the Bill that also cause deep concern; he need only wait for that.

Chris Bryant: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the emergency workers legislation. One of the difficulties about the way in which it works is that magistrates courts can only sentence up to six months and the Government have still failed to change the law to allow them to issue longer sentences in certain circumstances. The danger is that increasing the sentence will make absolutely no difference whatever, unless the Government do what they could already have done in the last two years.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having understood the attitude of the Government in 2018, perhaps it is not surprising how slow this has been.

Rob Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Let me make some progress; I have taken a number of interventions.
I come to the police covenant and frontline police officers across the country. Like the Home Secretary, I meet the chair of the Police Federation and work with him on a regular basis. Only in recent days, I met my local officers in Gwent—virtually, of course—with hon. Friends and listened to the work that they are doing. It is clear that throughout this pandemic frontline officers are putting themselves at risk to keep us safe, but across the board, frontline workers in the police, fire service, education and so many other areas are facing a pay freeze. Their efforts in this pandemic are being rewarded with a real-terms pay cut.
The police covenant is welcome but overdue—it is in this Bill, some three years after it was promised. It is right that the Home Secretary makes an annual report to Parliament, addressing key issues on physical protection, health and wellbeing, and support for families, but we will study this provision closely, in consultation with representatives from across policing. We will be arguing for protections including support for mental health, which is too often overlooked.
I turn to the toughening of sentences for those who cause death by dangerous driving. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) deserves great credit for securing these changes, together with other right hon. and hon. Members who signed the Bill introduced by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), last year. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), together with MPs from a number of parties. We support those proposals; too many people have taken lives and left families heartbroken, with insufficient punishment—that has to end.
On the extension of laws that prevent adults in positions of trust from engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18, sports coaches and faith leaders should be included in those safeguards. I give great credit here to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), with others, including Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I am sure everyone from across the House would send her our very best wishes.

James Gray: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House will be pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was in the Tea Room this afternoon and she tells me that her treatment is fully successful and she will be on her way to a full recovery shortly.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: That is a wonderful intervention to take; I am sure we will all be delighted to hear that.
The Government could do more on the issue I was discussing. For example, tutors and driving instructors are not included, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look at that again.
Another area where some measures are welcome is in parts of the review from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham being implemented, but that review was published in September 2017, nearly four years ago; there are provisions for the pilot of problem solving courts, for recognising the remand of children as a last resort and for reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. On the issue of reform of the Disclosure and Barring Service, I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for his work in securing that change.
All those things are welcome and overdue, but we have heard such powerful testimony of the lived experiences and family legacies of the prejudice that black people have faced. Black people have bravely stepped forward to share their testimony of structural racism and the impact it still has. The Government cannot ignore the disproportionality that exists from start to finish in our  criminal justice system and continue to take steps that make it worse. The Bill contains so-called serious violence reduction orders, which raise serious questions about disproportionality and community trust. As a minimum, the whole of the review by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, all 35 recommendations, should be progressed without further delay.
Similarly, the Government must look again at the sections of this Bill on unauthorised encampments. The proposals create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle. The loose way it is drafted seems to capture the intention to do this as well as actually doing this, with penalties of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. This is clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and the criminalisation would potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.
When Friends, Families and Travellers researched the consultation responses the Government received, they found that 84% of the police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. Little wonder that senior police officers are telling us that the changes in the Bill would add considerable extra cost to already stretched policing, while making situations worse. I ask Ministers to think of the signal they are sending. We have already had the discussion about how responding to letters to the Home Office quickly is not the Home Secretary’s strong point, but she will surely have seen the letter to her in January—possibly not, given her earlier answer—from nine different organisations, ranging from the Ramblers to Cycling UK. That letter sets out that these unclear proposals not only risk discriminating against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, but risk criminalising wild camping and even rough sleepers in makeshift shelters or tents.

Andrew Griffith: The right hon. Gentleman is very generous to take so many interventions. Is it not the case that, notwithstanding the consultation, the Government have listened and have added the requirement to enter with a vehicle? There is no form of rambling I am aware of where one brings a vehicle on to land with the intention of residing there.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think the hon. Member needs to reread the Bill on the scope of the provisions, frankly, because it is extraordinarily loosely drafted.
Rights of access to the countryside were hard won through the protests of previous generations. I do realise that there is some ill feeling between this Prime Minister and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, but I did not realise that it ran so deep that he would be happy to see people locked up for naughtily running through a field of wheat. [Interruption.] If only she had all those years ago as well.
The Bill before the House could be a landmark Bill, and we must seize this opportunity for change. Yes, absolutely, there are measures in this Bill that we welcome—mostly because Labour Members have actually campaigned for them—but addressing violence against women and girls cannot be at the bottom of this Government’s list of priorities. If Ministers disagree with my interpretation, they must show it by their actions, and drop the elements of the Bill that suggest that attacking a statue could be a worse crime than rape, drop the elements of the Bill on  protests, and revisit the elements that drive up disproportionality and the controls on encampments, which are discriminatory and unworkable. Instead, let this Bill be an opportunity for people to come together and seize the moment to drive through vital changes to address violence against women and girls. Whatever this Government say as the Bill progresses, we on these Benches understand and we hear the call for change. Labour will work to bring about that change, and I would ask all Members to work with us in that endeavour.

Theresa May: I join the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in sending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends.
There are elements of this Bill, which is a very large and significant Bill, that I really welcome: the action on unauthorised encampments, on serious violence, on people in positions of trust and on changes to sentencing. I particularly, of course, welcome the change to sentencing for death by dangerous driving, which reflects the change I proposed in my ten-minute rule Bill. It was supported, as the shadow Home Secretary said, across the whole of the House, because many Members of this House have constituency cases that have been affected by this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) indicated in his intervention. My desire to bring this forward was first brought about by the case—the very sad case—of my constituent Bryony Hollands, who was killed by somebody under the influence of drugs and drink, but there have been other constituency cases, such as those of Eddy Lee and Max Simmons. On their behalf, on behalf of their families and on behalf of all those affected by this, I say simply to the Government, thank you.
I would like to focus on a number of areas where I worry that there could be unintended consequences of the measures being brought forward by the Government in this Bill. I absolutely see the reason for bringing forward the serious violence reduction orders, but I welcome the fact that they are being piloted, because I think there could be unintended consequences in two areas. The first is in stop-and-search. Stop-and-search is an important tool, but it must be used lawfully and it must not be used disproportionately against certain communities. My concern is that we do not go backwards on improvements that have been made on stop-and-search, and that we actually ensure that we do not see this being used disproportionately and a disproportionate increase taking place.
The other area is girls in gangs, and I am concerned—I have had a discussion with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), about this—that we could see serious violence reduction orders against male members of gangs leading to their pressurising their girlfriends to be carrying knives, with the impact that would have on those girls. The way in which girlfriends of gang members are used to get at rival gangs is a worry and needs to be given more attention, and I do not want to see the position of girls being further exacerbated, unintentionally, as a result of these orders.
My second concern is about pre-charge bail. I can absolutely see that, as a result of the changes that were brought in previously, we have seen too many cases  where people have not been put on bail, particularly where the crime was a serious violent crime against a woman. However, I ask the Home Secretary to look carefully at the nine-month period that is being set before the police have to go to the magistrates court for an extension of bail. Certainly, I would urge her to resist any suggestion that that should be extended, because we cannot go back to a situation where people are effectively left with their lives on hold, possibly for years, as a result of the operation of bail.
Finally, I want to raise one area that has already been raised: I do have some concerns about some of the aspects of the public order provisions in the Bill. I absolutely accept that the police have certain challenges, for example when people glue themselves to vehicles or to the gates of Parliament, but freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that might sometimes be. I know that there will be people who will have seen scenes of protests and asked, “Why aren’t the Government doing something?” The answer, in many cases, may simply be that we live in a democratic, free society.
I do worry about the potential unintended consequences of some of the measures in the Bill, which have been drawn quite widely. Protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate. The first area that I will mention is giving police the powers to deal with static protests in the way that they have been able to deal with marches. Those have always been differentiated in the past. The second is around noise and nuisance; some of the definitions do look quite wide, and I would urge the Government to look at those definitions.
The final area I want to mention is the power for the Home Secretary to make regulations about the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation…or…to the life of the community.”
It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable. I wonder whether the Government will be willing to publish a draft of those regulations during the Bill’s passage so that we can see what they are going to be and ensure that they are not also encroaching on the operational decisions of the police.
There are very important elements of this Bill, but I would urge the Government to consider carefully the need to walk a fine line between being popular and populist. Our freedoms depend on it.

Anne McLaughlin: I can confirm that the Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow. That is not to say that there are not sections of the proposed legislation that we support or are satisfied with, but the Bill as introduced will not achieve what the Government say they want to achieve, will seriously curtail the rights to protest, will criminalise the way of life of Gypsy/Travellers, is likely to have a disproportionate negative impact on ethnic minority communities and women, and will allow the ridiculous and unjust possibility of a tougher jail sentence for someone who topples over a statue than for someone who does the same thing to a living human being.
There is one overarching thing on which I think we can all agree, and it is certainly the view of the Scottish National party: tackling serious crime has to be a priority. But rather than creating policy to elicit macho headlines about tougher sentences and who comes down hardest on crime, the bottom line for us is: what works? What reduces crime? When it comes to reducing reoffending, Scotland’s rates are the lowest they have been since comparable records began, because of our focus on community justice.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), knows that this tougher sentencing policy does not work. He once said:
“The evidence is mixed, although harsher sentencing tends to be associated with limited or no general deterrent effect.”
So why make that a central plank of the Bill? That is a question the UK Government have to answer. Why do it if it does not work?
Someone we should always listen to is the chief executive of Community Justice Scotland, Karyn McCluskey. She said:
“Community justice allows people who commit a crime to pay back to the community they harmed whilst addressing any underlying causes of crime such as addiction, homelessness and mental health issues.”
It is not hard justice, it is not soft justice; it is smart justice that genuinely reduces reoffending. I will say it again: Scotland now has the lowest reconviction rates since comparable records began 21 years ago.
I turn to the right to protest, which is a right. I know the Government have a bit of a disdain for international law, but article 11 of the European convention on human rights is the right to freedom of assembly and association. The Bill directly contradicts the rights of citizens to protest where, when and how they choose. If it goes through, there will be very few rights to protest in England and Wales at all, and that is unacceptable in a democracy—especially one that likes to claim to be the bastion of democracy and has a history of telling the rest of the world how to behave.
Let us not forget the rights of the people of Scotland to protest in England. While decisions about our lives are made in London, we, the people of Scotland, reserve the right to peacefully protest at the seat of power. Let me note some of the things that the people of Scotland have protested about in England: the Iraq war, over which Scotland had no choice; the obscenity of nuclear weapons conveniently stationed in Scotland, over which Scotland has no choice; and the wonderful women and their allies in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Allow me to quote Rosie Dickson from WASPI in Scotland, who called this
“truly a step too far for those 1950s-born women who have not only been unfairly denied their pensions by a Westminster Government but now also face having their human right to protest against it, without fear of arrest, removed.”
Of course, we in the Scottish National party intend for London not to be the seat of power for much longer. We intend to win our independence so that all the decisions governing the lives of the people of Scotland are made in Scotland, where the right to protest is respected. When the Government of an independent Scotland get it wrong, as all Governments do from time to time, the people will be perfectly entitled to tell them that. However,  even if independence were happening next week, I would leave this Parliament still fighting for the right of every citizen to protest.
These draconian powers are wide reaching, We have heard a comprehensive analysis of most of them from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), so I will focus on just a few. First, we as Members of Parliament are accountable to our constituents, but now our constituents are to be told that they can protest and let us know of their disapproval, only we would prefer silent protests so we are introducing noise as a basis on which the police can intervene and impose any type of condition to stop them. Even if they do make noise, it will not matter. We will not hear them because we are putting in an exclusion zone around Parliament so far-reaching that what they have to say—their legitimate protest—will not fall on deaf ears; they will simply be so far away that it will not be audible. They will effectively be silenced. I want those people to know that I do not want them silenced, even if they are opposed to what I stand for. I want to be a Member of a Parliament that embraces democracy; the Bill is doing the opposite, and it is embarrassing.
Speaking of embarrassing, that word does not cover how the events of Saturday night felt for most of us watching them. I want to say something about what happened at Clapham common in the context of the police using the powers they already have and for us to think about how much worse it will get if the sweeping powers in the Bill are handed over to senior police officers.
First, I want to add my voice to those of the many thousands who are heartbroken for the family and friends of Sarah Everard. The torment that her family must be going through is something that nobody in this House would wish on anyone. I know we all share the despair. I attended an online vigil on Saturday night, but I understood why those women who met in person did so—particularly those who live near to where Sarah was taken. I got it. I know they were breaking regulations, and I would never encourage that, but they were in pain and they wanted to come together to help others also in pain. I do not know any woman who has not got a story to tell. Male violence against women takes such a heavy toll on all of us, and sometimes we need to be with other people.
Given the context of Clapham common on Saturday night, surely sensitivity should have been the watchword. I cannot imagine how frightened some of the women must have been, particularly given the circumstances. They have just had an alarming reminder that the police uniform does not give a cast-iron guarantee of safety and some of them find themselves on the ground, handcuffed, with knees on their back, flowers for Sarah trampled on, legs held down and unable to move at the hands of the police. Sarah Everard was just walking home; those women were just expressing their grief. If the current powers to curb protest can lead to what happened on Saturday night, imagine how much worse it will get if this legislation goes through.
I am deeply concerned about the attacks in the Bill on the way of life of some of our citizens. I am speaking, of course, about the Gypsy/Traveller community, who are among the most persecuted on these islands and among the most misunderstood. This Tory Government want to criminalise their way of life at the same time as the Scottish Government have produced an action plan entitled  “Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers”. What a contrast! Why are this Government so intent on cracking down hardest on the most vulnerable in our society?
While we are on the issue of racism in society, let me come to clause 46 on memorials. Is it not interesting that this legislation that comes down hard on anyone damaging a memorial comes about shortly after a group of people in Bristol toppled a statue of someone who made his money from slavery? Would I have toppled the statue? No. But do I think slave owners should have lasting memorials to them? Definitely not. This Bill would increase the maximum jail sentence for someone convicted of this to 10 years: 10 years for damaging an inanimate and, to some, very offensive object, when it is rare to get anything like as much as that for damaging a living, breathing person or animal. It is interesting, isn’t it, that the toppled statue that I believe prompted some of this legislation was toppled as part of a Black Lives Matter demonstration, when black people and their allies finally said, “Enough is enough”? As soon as they organise to have their voices heard, legislation pops up to silence them. I find that very interesting. I have spoken this weekend to people in the Black Lives Matter movement who believe that this endangers their very existence. They are in no doubt that they will be targeted.
I have had a lot of emails about this in the past two days, and there will be many people watching who—believe it or not—do not normally tune into Parliament, so it is worth mentioning that this is Second Reading and the next stage is Committee, where the Bill will be scrutinised line by line, word for word, by Members from each party, where evidence will be considered, and where amendments may be proposed. One of the things we will want to pay particular attention to is clause 36 on data extraction from mobile devices. I know the Scottish Government have been speaking to the UK Government about safeguarding and some progress has been made. This is certainly something we will want to interrogate. We have to be exceptionally careful about the use of people’s personal data.
Let me turn briefly to stop and search. Although this will not impact directly on Scotland, I want to add my voice to those on the Opposition Benches who are saying “Enough is enough.” It is not just politicians who are saying that the impact on black communities is disproportionate and it is not just black communities who are saying it. Newly retired chief executive of the College of Policing, Mike Cunningham, has voiced his concern that existing stop-and-search powers are disproportionate to what he calls an “eye-watering” degree. We should be listening to him and to groups like Liberty, Amnesty and Fair Trials who have called for a review of existing powers rather than an extension.
If it is to be fair, the law must be foreseeable. We must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that any given action may entail. This Bill is peppered with ambiguous wording left to be defined by statutory instruments. For example, there are regular references throughout to “serious disruption” as a reason to criminalise somebody, but there is nothing in the Bill to define “serious disruption”, leaving it effectively to the Home Secretary to decide. I want to know what the Home Secretary’s definition is. I want the right to debate it. The Home Secretary and I interpret things very differently. She thought the Black  Lives Matter movement was “dreadful” while I think it is magnificent, so her idea of “serious disruption” will likely be very different from mine. Yet we are signing over to her the right to come up with a definition that will not be debated and we are simply expected to accept that. It is not good enough. The Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow and scrutinising it very carefully when it comes to Committee.

Bob Neill: This is a significant and large Bill, and it warrants serious scrutiny. It therefore deserves better attention, I submit, than some of the hyperbole that has regrettably been thrown at it in the course of the earlier speeches of this debate. It is reasonable to examine a Bill carefully as it goes through Committee. I have scarcely ever known a Bill that is not improved by careful examination from the time when it is brought in. To vote against the Bill tomorrow does not seem to me to be a mark of a responsible Opposition, and it is regrettable that Labour and the Scottish National party have gone down that route, particularly when they can see that there is much to agree with. Many organisations in the criminal justice sphere including NACRO, the Centre for Justice organisation, the Magistrates Association and others have welcomed measures in the Bill.
We need a sense of proportion about these matters. For example, the reforms to public order legislation certainly need careful consideration, but changes to the law around public nuisance were recommended by the Law Commission as long ago as 2015. This measure puts that law on a statutory basis, as the Law Commission recommended, but uses, perfectly understandably, terms and phrases from the old common law arrangements, which are well understood and well defined by case law in the courts. The idea, therefore, that the Law Commission is somehow part of some authoritarian plot seems to me to be risible, and better arguments can be made than that.
Being near the M25, my constituency has unfortunately had repeated unauthorised incursions into both publicly owned and privately owned playing fields, sports grounds and others. Proportionality and fairness also mean that there should be swifter and better recompense than the current situation permits for those communities that see much-valued community assets put out of use by unauthorised encampments.
On the sentencing elements of the Bill, sentencing is always a difficult matter, both in individual cases and in terms of policy. It requires a careful balance. Overall, the Justice Secretary and his team who worked on this part of the Bill have got it right. It is right that we strengthen provision to protect the public from the most serious criminals, but it is also right that we give greater attention to the need to rehabilitate. Basically, many of those who end up in the criminal justice system and, indeed, in prison have chaotic lifestyles, sometimes mental health issues, educational issues, social problems and, frequently, weakness and stupidity. Getting those people out of a never-ending cycle of reoffending, as the White Paper says, on which this part of the Bill is based, is not just in their interests, but, overwhelmingly, in the interests of the public, too. I welcome the provisions to give a more agile and sophisticated suite of alternatives to custody. It is important that alternatives to custody  are credible to the public, because sentencing has to be credible, but also that they do not waste time in comparatively short prison sentences where little rehabilitative work can be done, and which are hugely expensive. They have their place in just limited instances. Those changes, therefore, are very welcome.
Changes to the provisions regarding spent convictions are very important for rehabilitation. The Justice Committee has called for that in previous reports. Recognising a distinct approach to sentencing of younger offenders is, again, something that our Committee has repeatedly called for, and I welcome that, too. Equally, raising the threshold for remanding children into custody is very welcome and I would have thought overwhelmingly supported.
There is much to support in this Bill, including the provision for charities to set up secure schools, a much better improvement on our current provision. I very much hope that this Bill will get its Second Reading and that we can then examine the provisions in detail. The final thing that we have to be honest about is that justice does not come cheap. If we are to make these important and radical changes to sentencing policy, we must invest in them. If we are to have alternatives to custody, we must invest properly in those alternatives. They will bring both a social and an economic benefit in the long run, but we have to be honest and spell that out at the beginning.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.

Yvette Cooper: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), a fellow Select Committee Chair.
The tragic death of Sarah Everard is obviously on all our minds. It has led women across the country to talk about our shared experiences of threats on the streets of our own towns and cities and also to express the anger that, more than 40 years after the first reclaim the night marches in Leeds, we are having the same debates all over again. In some areas, it feels like things have gone backwards. Five years ago, just 8.5% of reported rapes reached prosecution. In the last five years, that has fallen to just 1.4%. The Government have been reviewing this for two years, but in the meantime prosecution rates have got worse.
That reflects the broader near-collapse in the effectiveness of some parts of the criminal justice system. In the five years before covid hit, recorded crime rose by 40%, but the number of crimes being prosecuted fell by 30%. In just five years, hundreds of thousands fewer charges were brought, and hundreds of thousands more criminals are therefore getting away with their crimes. In West Yorkshire, recorded violent crime has shot up. The Government have passed lots of laws, but the number of people convicted of breaking them has fallen. There have been lots of changes to sentences, but fewer criminals are getting sentenced in the first place, so justice is not being done and victims are being let down. Over the last five years, the shocking truth is that it has got easier to be a criminal and harder to be a victim. We cannot let that stand.
There is an important debate to be had about the measures in the Bill, but I see nothing in them that will turn around those shocking figures, and that is what we should work across the House to do. We need the police covenant and stronger measures to support police officers and emergency workers who face attack. We need stronger sentences for the most serious of crimes, including whole-life sentences for premeditated child murder, which is one of the vilest crimes of all. I support those measures. The same should apply for premeditated kidnap, rape and murder, but that is not currently in the Bill. There should also be stronger penalties for rape and stalking, but those are not currently in the Bill. It would, I think, be wrong if we ended up with higher sentences for peaceful protest and public nuisance than for stalking. That would be to get the balance wrong.
I put forward measures last year based on Home Affairs Committee work to extend the register and monitoring provisions for dealing with sex offenders to cover repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking, to stop them moving from one victim to the next and destroying people’s lives because no one is keeping track or joining the dots. I hope the Government will accept Baroness Royall’s amendment in the other place. If they do not, I will table the same measures to this Bill, and I hope that support can be built for them.
There are further measures, which I hope first to discuss with Ministers, that I hope could increase the prosecution rate for assault and domestic abuse, where there have been such problems. The Government are right to place a duty on councils and the police to co-operate in tackling serious violence, but we should be explicit about including the youth service in that; that is not currently part of the Bill.
The Home Secretary will know, even from today’s debate, that there is cross-party alarm about some of the measures in the Bill that go against the British tradition of free speech and peaceful protest. In the coalfields, there is strong support for the work of the police, but people have long memories of things such as the policing of the miners’ strike, so there is also strong support for proper safeguards to protect peaceful protest.
In the Bill, several powers—the broad wording on noise disruption, even though we know few protests are silent, because people want their voices to be heard; the broad powers given to the Home Secretary on serious disruption; and the statutory public nuisance offences with sentences of up to 10 years for doing things that simply might risk causing serious annoyance—are too broad. Every one of us will have seen protests that we thought were seriously annoying, but we do not believe that they should have been stopped. We know, too, that when people protested outside the Iranian embassy for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the embassy could well have argued that the protests were disruptive to their activities or caused serious annoyance, but none of us would have wanted those protests to be stopped. I urge the Home Secretary to withdraw those measures, to re-consult on them and to try to build consensus not just on them, but on the other, wider, measures in the Bill, so that we can all support taking the action needed to cut crime.

James Gray: It is a privilege to be called so early in this extremely important debate. As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon.  Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, although I am a little puzzled, because most of the amendments to the Bill to make it better that she talked about would not be possible if, thanks to the power of her rhetoric, she persuaded the House to vote against Second Reading, since there would be no Committee stage in which to do that. I suspect that, even though she will go through the No Lobby, she actually hopes that the Bill will go into Committee.
I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on this outstandingly good Bill designed to make us all safer in so many different ways, but I want to focus on one small aspect of the Bill: the sentencing of minors in clauses 101 to 105. The Home Secretary knows well the case of my constituent Ellie Gould, and she kindly saw the Gould parents on one occasion. Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home by 17-year-old Thomas Griffiths in May 2019. It was the most horrible murder of the worst kind, with a knife found at the scene of the crime.
Griffiths’ 12 and a half-year sentence was shorter than it should have been for three reasons: first, because he pled guilty, and I am glad that he did; secondly, because he was a junior at the time of the offence, albeit he was 18 at the time he was convicted; and thirdly, because, rather than taking a knife with him to the murder, he picked one up in the kitchen. He none the less stabbed Ellie multiple times using that knife and then sought to pretend that Ellie had done it to herself. It was very much a premeditated crime—there is no question about it—but because he did not bring a knife to the scene, he only got 12 and a half years, rather than the significantly longer sentence he would have got otherwise.
I pay tribute to Ellie’s parents, Matt and Carole Gould, and a group of her school friends, who have been tireless in fighting to change the law in respect of a brutal crime of this kind. I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary for having listened carefully to them. Under clause 101, a 17-year-old who turns 18 during the course of the trial, as happened in this case, will now face a similar penalty to the one they would face if they had been 18 at the time of the crime. Until now, a 17-year-old was treated much the same as a 10-year-old, and of course, they are very different people. A sliding scale will now be introduced, so that a 17-year-old will be pretty much treated as an adult. That would have increased Thomas Griffiths’ sentence to 14 years. We also welcome the ending of the automatic review halfway through the sentence, which, apart from anything else, causes huge stress and trauma to the victim’s family.
However, the Bill does not address the third anomaly, which is that had Griffiths brought the knife to the scene rather than pick it up in the kitchen, his sentence would have more than doubled—he would have got up to 27 years, rather than 12 and a half. Surely a frenzied attack of this kind, whether it is done with the knife that someone brings with them or a knife that they find in the kitchen, deserves the fullest possible sentence in the law.
There is an argument that women who are victims of domestic abuse may carry out a murder in self-defence using a knife at home. Surely the criminal law could find a way of saying that murder in self-defence under those conditions is quite different from a brutal murder such  as that of Ellie Gould. The Lord Chancellor has said that he will consider this matter further, probably outside the context of the Bill. None the less, I hope that such a differentiation will be made possible in the near future, because this is a very important matter, and it touches on the tragic case of Sarah Everard.
Nothing can bring Ellie Gould back. Nothing can assuage the grief of her parents. Incidentally, nothing can assuage the grief of Thomas Griffiths’ parents, who are also my constituents; they have lost their son in a very real way too. But strengthening the sentencing regime, as the Bill does, will at least mean some lasting legacy. It is, indeed, Ellie’s law.

Eleanor Laing: After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.

Harriet Harman: I very much agree with what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said. The terrible outcome of the police ban on the Clapham common vigil in the wake of the tragic killing of Sarah Everard shows how wrong the Government are to try in this Bill to curb the right to demonstrate, so I hope they will think again about that. The anger of the vigil was about women demanding to be able to walk the streets without fear, and we must listen to those demands and act on them now in the Bill. This demand is not new. Along with women up and down the country, I joined the “Reclaim the Night” protests in the 1970s, but then women’s demands were not listened to by the men in the corridors of power. Now there are women in government, in the Home Office and in the Cabinet. There are women in all parties in Parliament. We are in the corridors of power, so we must use our power to deliver for women.
We all argued it would make a difference if we were here as women in Parliament. Now we had better prove it. We can in this Bill make it a crime to do what men do to women on the street every day and which makes their lives a misery. Kerb crawling is terrifying for a woman or a girl on her own, especially after dark. A man has no right to do it, so let us make it an offence punishable by taking away his driving licence. Following a woman on the street, filming her, trying to get her number and not taking no for an answer are harassment. Why should women and girls have to put up with it? Let us make that a criminal offence. I have tabled two new clauses, which have the backing of Members from all parties, and not just women, but men, too. I hope that the Government will accept them.
Too often when a woman is the victim of a sexual offence, all her previous sexual history is dragged up in court and it ends up as though she is in the dock, not the man. That is not supposed to happen, but it does, so we need to stop it. I have new clauses with cross-party backing to do that, too, which I hope the Government will back. Women do not want us to sympathise; they want action, and that is what we should do.

Philip Davies: There is much in the Bill that I agree with, and much of that was set out by the Home Secretary in her opening remarks. I particularly agree with increasing the sentences for assaults on emergency  workers to two years, which is an amendment I tabled back when the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 was first debated in 2018. It is always good when the Government come round to my way of thinking, so I hope as a result they will look favourably on my amendments when I table them, and we can save some time.
In the time I have, I will go through some of the things I would like to see in the Bill. As was mentioned earlier, I would like to see a specific offence for assaulting shop workers and other frontline workers. I used to work in retail, but it has been absolutely terrible to see the fact that during the pandemic, when shop workers have been going the extra mile to help us all, the number of assaults on them has doubled. We really need to do something about that, and I hope the Government will look favourably upon that proposal.
I am pleased to see some of the provisions for ending automatic early release for prisoners. I certainly support that, but I would like the Bill to go further. I would like to see the end of all automatic early release for prisoners, particularly those still considered to be a danger to the public. I would particularly like to see an end to all automatic release for those people in prison who assault our prison officers. Again, prison officers face a terrible burden in prison, with far too many assaults. If we were to say to prisoners that anybody convicted of assaulting a prison officer would lose their right to automatic release, that may well help those hard-pressed prison officers.
I would like to see the retirement age for magistrates and judges increased to 75. The Justice Secretary has said that he intends to do that, so this Bill seems a very good vehicle for that. I would like to see a sentencing escalator, whereby if people are convicted of the same offence more than once, they have to get a harsher punishment the second time than they had the first time, and a harsher punishment yet again if they commit the same offence a third time. The Government clearly accept the principle of that, because they have done exactly that with the covid fines. I hope they will allow a sentencing escalator for other criminal offences as well.
I would like to see magistrates’ sentencing power increased to 12 months, rather than six months. That needs to be done. I would like to see the word “insulting” removed from section 4 and section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 so that someone cannot be guilty of something if they simply insult people. There are many amendments I would like to see to this Bill that time does not allow me to mention this evening. I could do with a whole day on Report all to myself.

Eleanor Laing: I do not think that is entirely likely to occur.

Andrew Slaughter: Ask almost anyone involved in the criminal justice system for their priorities, and they will not say, “More new offences, types and lengths of sentences, and further layers of complexity masquerading as action”; they will point to the backlog in the courts, the lack of resources for everything from legal aid to prisons, and the systemic failure at every turn from investigation and charge, to trial and disposal.  Some measures in the Bill are helpful, but parts are oppressive and downright dangerous. I refer particularly to parts 3 and 4, which amount to a sustained attack on civil liberties, free expression and movement by an intolerant Government who are increasingly careless of the rule of law.
Given the time restraints, I will set up the case against part 4 of the Bill. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma are the most discriminated against and marginalised ethnic minority in UK society—indeed, the action of Pontins management reminded us of that only days ago. The Bill targets those communities, and it criminalises what has hitherto been the civil offence of trespass on land. It makes the direct threat of imprisonment and heavy fines for matters that were previously resolved through negotiation or in the civil courts. The Bill threatens, not just for the act of trespass but for an intention to trespass, to seize and forfeit any vehicle involved in that trespass, which in the case of nomadic people means losing their home and all their possessions.
Only 3% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans are on unauthorised sites. The police response to the proposals was unequivocal:
“trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so…no new criminal trespass offence is required.”
No family willingly stops somewhere they are not welcome, and which has no running water, waste disposal or electricity. They do so for the lack of either permanent or transit sites. Only 29 councils in England provide transit sites—a mere 354 places.
Evictions will run for 12 months, and it is not difficult to imagine a concerted campaign to exclude Travellers from whole areas of the country, contrary to the recent judgment in the London Borough of Bromley v. Persons Unknown. The judge in that case concluded that
“the Gypsy and Traveller community have an enshrined freedom not to stay in one place but to move from one place to another.”
Preventing that potentially breaches both equality and human rights law, as the shadow Home Secretary said earlier. The Home Secretary may not care about any of this, but many people do. She would be well advised to drop these racist and draconian proposals from the Bill before it progresses any further.

Alberto Costa: Unlike the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), those of us who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies know only too well the problems caused by unauthorised encampments, and the deeply damaging effects they have on our local communities. The proposed offence refers to those who brazenly travel and set up unauthorised encampments, with total disregard for others. My constituents have often been subject to the disruption and difficulties caused by those in caravans who, without permission, set up on a village green, a playing field or agricultural land. Although I accept that that may not sound particularly troublesome in theory, unfortunately it is the behaviour and activities of those in the caravans that causes disruption, damage, and disquiet in our lovely rural villages and towns.
The Government’s proposals on tackling unauthorised encampments is a big step in the right direction, but of course more should be done. It does not discriminate against the vast majority of law-abiding Gypsy and  Traveller communities, and neither should it, but it highlights the big issue of those who set up unauthorised encampments, and allows authorities to deal with that in a more effective manner.
I support the proposal in clause 46 to create the offence of desecration of memorials, and I would like the Government to consider creating a new offence of attacking the parliamentary offices of Members of the House. An attack on an MP’s office is an attack on the House and on the heart of our democracy. I should declare that I am the victim of such a crime. My office was violently attacked less than two months ago in what appears to have been a premeditated attack designed to intimidate my staff and me. Unfortunately, Leicestershire police, led by Chief Constable Simon Cole, have not been able to identify the assailant. This is the second time in less than 21 months that my office has been attacked. If we are to place value on memorials and statues, as we should, by creating this new offence, how much more important is the symbol of this sovereign body in each constituency—namely, the MP’s office bearing the portcullis? These are not inanimate historical objects; they are the living, breathing and supposedly safe workplaces of Members of this House across our country. I ask the Government to confirm that they take seriously these attacks against MPs, their staff and their parliamentary offices—even more seriously than attacks against statues. Accordingly, I invite the Government to consider my reasonable suggestion for a specific offence of attacking an MP, their office or their staff in their constituency.

Stephanie Peacock: In September 2018, my constituent, Jackie Wileman, was tragically killed by four known criminals who joy-rode a stolen heavy goods vehicle around Barnsley for days before hitting and killing Jackie on her daily walk and crashing into a house in the village of Brierley. The four men had 100 convictions between them, and one had already been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. At the trial, one man pleaded guilty and the other three were also convicted, but with plea deductions and time on licence, they all served between five and just over six years. The lenient sentences handed down to them following Jackie’s death led to her brother, Johnny Wood, bravely and tirelessly campaigning to scrap the maximum sentence for those who cause death by dangerous driving, so that no family would have to go through what they have gone through. Having fought alongside Johnny for this change in the law, and having raised the issue in the Chamber many times and having met the Justice Minister, I am in no doubt that Johnny’s powerful testimony has directly contributed to the sentencing Bill we have before us today.
The Bill, while strong on dangerous driving, also had the opportunity to support victims of other crimes. I met virtually with my constituent Claire Hinchcliffe a few weeks ago. She suffered 13 months of abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, who continued to stalk her after the end of their relationship. He was given a 12-month restraining order. The Bill could have strengthened sentences for crimes such as this, but it does not. It does not mention violence against women once. It fails to address this issue, yet it proposes to give the police extra powers and the right to limit peaceful protest.
The history of Barnsley demonstrates the issues with policing protests and public order. For those who lived through the 1984 miners’ strike and experienced abuse at the hands of the police, these new powers will rightly cause alarm. The state already has sweeping powers to police protests; it does not need any more. This is not about protecting the public; it is about getting cheap, easy headlines for a weak Home Secretary. I am pleased to welcome the provisions in the Bill that will finally deliver justice for Jackie, but I am disappointed that I cannot support the Bill in its entirety due to the fact that it threatens our right to peaceful protest and has no provision to protect victims such as Claire and the thousands of other women who are seeking justice.

Iain Duncan Smith: In the short time available, I will limit myself slightly. The Opposition’s position is somewhat illogical at the moment. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is by no means perfect. I hope that it will be corrected as it goes through. Will that happen? Certainly. I accept that there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and I think that these will be dealt with during the course of the debate. Overall, this is a good Bill, but Labour Members are going to vote against the protection of the police, the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime, and important measures on sentencing and release, on public order, on encampments—which bother a lot of my constituents—on youth justice, on secure children’s homes and academies, and on the management and rehabilitation of offenders. They will vote against all of that, yet they agree with much of it. That does not make any sense to me.
Tonight I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to something very important that is not in the Bill, and I want to make some progress on this. It is to do with the rising theft of pets, including dogs, much of which now includes violence. This is a really big issue; it is not prosaic by any means.

Robert Syms: I agree with my right hon. Friend—it is a big issue for my constituents and I am glad he has brought it up.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There have been reports of a huge, 250% increase in dog-theft crimes in a number of counties, particularly Suffolk. The Metropolitan police, who cover my area, report the highest number of dog thefts in the country. The number of stolen dogs registered on the DogLost website has increased by more than 170% since lockdown, and 2020 was the worst ever year for the theft of dogs.
We are not talking about some inanimate object; this is an animal, a pet who is part of the family like the other pets. Dogs also do hugely important jobs. Who secures this place by ensuring that we do not have bombs? Dogs. Who checks at customs that people are not importing drugs and other things? Dogs. Dogs are being trained to detect covid now, and they should have been brought into airports years ago.
The reality here is that it is very violent. The big point is that gangs are involved now. The prices of these animals have risen—we are talking about £5,000 or £10,000 for a dog—and the gangs are very violent. I have constituents who have been knocked to the ground  and beaten and had their hands stamped on. There have been threats made against them, their home and their families. These are serious offences, yet right now it is almost impossible to get more than a slap on the wrist for this stuff—a fine of £250 or perhaps £500.
Dogs are not even listed in the Home Office classification—they are in among theft from the person, bicycle theft, shoplifting and other theft. Pet theft currently sits hidden from view under HOC49, alongside things that do not have a home, such as a wheelbarrow. This is wrong, it diminishes the crime and it means that many people who are devastated by pet theft, and often brutalised, have no recourse. As I said, even the sentencing side of it is very poor. We need to bring in much tougher sentences and it is important that we have a categorisation that includes dogs and other pets. We also need police to take pet theft seriously. One individual told me that when their dog was stolen, a police officer said, “Did you have anything else of value taken?” as though dogs were not of any value.
Microchips have to be put in by law, yet no vet has to scan to see whether or not a dog is stolen. That should change so we should bring that in. Other ideas include a ban on cash sales, as happened with scrap metal, to cut off such sales, and consideration of the reintroduction of licences for pet ownership.
Pet theft is a serious offence and I would like the Government, during deliberations on the Bill, to introduce changes to help people. Violence and the theft of animals are wrong. We should do something about it, and do it now.

Debbie Abrahams: The Bill is a missed opportunity. I support some measures, such as those on the police covenant, on doubling the sentence for assaulting emergency workers and on toughening sentences for death by dangerous driving, but I have concerns about several others, including the proposed changes to the right to peaceful protest and the measures on unauthorised encampments, which are targeted at Gypsy, Roma and other travelling communities.
The absences in the Bill reveal the Government’s worrying priorities. The lack of the prioritising in the Bill of measures to protect women from violence and support them is a matter of deep regret. That the penalty for defacing a statute has been increased to 10 years—double the minimum tariff for someone convicted of rape—is offensive, and I hope the Government will think again on that. With that in mind, I send my sincere condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends—I can only imagine what they will be going through at the moment.
I wish to focus the remainder of my remarks on the absence of any measures in the Bill to repeal the Bail Act 1976, and on its impact on vulnerable women. Under the Act, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own protection, without that person being convicted or sentenced, and even when a charge cannot result in a prison sentence. Someone’s liberty can be removed without expert evidence or any formal investigation into their circumstances, and even without their having legal representation. It is reprehensible to deprive a vulnerable adult or child of their liberty  because of shortcomings in social security support or mental health or other local services. The potential for abuse in the use of such arcane and outdated legislation is clear to see. It is a scandal and surely in breach of human rights legislation.
Following our recent inquiry on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), has recommended that the Bail Act be repealed. At a recent APPG meeting, I was struck by the evidence from a prison governor, who said that prison was the worst possible environment for a vulnerable person and would exacerbate their vulnerability. The shocking thing is that the scale of the scandal is not even known; the Government do not even collect data on the number of people detained under this legislation. After meeting the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and the Howard League a few weeks ago, I had hoped that this would be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Home Secretary could indicate whether the Government will be correcting this omission in Committee.
Finally, I want to express my concerns regarding the Government’s failure once again to undertake any equality impact assessment on the Bill. Given the Lammy review and the evidenced racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system, the Government’s rhetoric about Black Lives Matter rings hollow.

Andrew Selous: I strongly support the points about pet theft made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I also strongly welcome the addition of faith leaders alongside sports coaches, both of which have been added to the list of professions in the Bill—that also includes teachers, social workers and doctors—for whom it is illegal to have a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17-year-old in their care. This is in line with the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and it is absolutely right.
I want to spend the rest of my remarks giving voice to the everyday experiences of one of my female constituents in her early 20s. The cumulative impact of these incidents amounts to very serious and wholly unacceptable antisocial behaviour of the very worst kind, which can lead to a severe lack of self-confidence and wellbeing.
Over the last year or so, my constituent has told me that she has endured: being touched inappropriately and called a prostitute by a strange man on her own doorstep; being continually cat-called while walking down the street; being groped without consent in a nightclub; being cat-called in a seriously offensive manner from the street while fully dressed in her own property; being harassed by a group of men in a pub; having her bottom commented on by an older man while filling her car up with petrol; having her figure loudly commented on by three boys while on the underground, with no one else in the carriage asking them to stop; being followed by a much older man in an unwanted manner over coffee after a church service; and having a man lie to her about his singleness, when he was married and asking her to meet under false pretences. If a young woman in  today’s society is not free from sexual harassment in her own home, in public, in a pub, in a nightclub, at a petrol station, on public transport or after a church service, where indeed is she safe?
The tragedy is that these experiences are all too common for many younger women, and it is vital that male Members of Parliament call them out. Although there is so much that we properly expect of the law, the police and the courts, they cannot change a whole culture on their own. That is where our common community life, our families, and indeed every single one of us, has a role. It is up to all of us to set a culture to uphold the values of decency, respect and honouring women that should be commonplace. In particular, it is up to all of us—especially men—to challenge the unacceptable behaviour of other men. The behaviour that I described earlier is not manly anyway; it is cowardly, bullying, pathetic and wrong.

Florence Eshalomi: I start by offering my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. May her soul rest in peace.
Parts of Clapham Common fall within my constituency, and having lived in Brixton all my life, I have walked the same streets that Sarah did. My first job was at the Sainsbury’s supermarket on Clapham High Street and my sixth-form college, St Francis Xavier Catholic Sixth Form College, is located at the southern tip of Clapham Common at Clapham South. I have felt afraid, and I do not want my daughter growing up and making the same adjustments that I did—that all women do. In the past few days, I have been contacted by hundreds of women and men—young and old, grandmothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers—who live in Clapham and across my constituency of Vauxhall. Now they no longer feel safe.
Our streets and our public spaces should not be places of fear for women. We need to listen to women’s voices and we must believe what they are telling us. That includes making sure we listen to all women, including the voices of black women and trans women. Far too often, we do not hear the names of black women and minority ethnic women in the news or on social media, but sadly, many of them have been failed by the police and the criminal justice system. So I say the names of Blessing Olusegun, Joy Morgan, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and many others who have died on our streets. Only then can we start to heal the mistrust and put in place long overdue protections to protect all women. We must and we will reclaim the streets.
The Bill is wide-ranging and it contains a number of important measures that I welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their tireless campaigning on dangerous driving, protecting our emergency service workers, reforming the Disclosure and Barring Service scheme, and widening the law to prevent adults from abusing their positions of trust and engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18. These measures will make us feel safer.
However, the Bill is also a missed opportunity for much-needed reforms. It does not do nearly enough to address the urgent issue of racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, I am disappointed that the Government have missed an opportunity to focus on prevention by ensuring that the organisations that need the long-term funding to tackle  serious violence and build trust with communities that feel they are sometimes viewed as the perpetrators when they are actually victims, are not included. That includes the many girls and young women caught up in violence associated with gang violence.
I want to focus the rest of my remarks on some of the other measures proposed in the Bill. Those who seek to control the expression of the right to protest—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady has significantly exceeded her time limit. She will have another opportunity at the next stage of the Bill.

Laura Farris: There is much that I welcome in the Bill, in particular that the Government have adopted recommendations made by the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse. I have a direct interest in this because I worked on it before entering Parliament. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that the inquiry’s recommendations have been brought into law. It is a powerful thing for the survivors to see the nightmares of their past informing the laws of the future, first, by extending the definition of “position of trust”. When we looked at sports coaches and religious leaders, what they shared was status not just in their sphere but in their community. The children they chose tended to be vulnerable in the first place. They built on the bonds of trust with families to establish extended periods with those children, often overnight, and they were willing to engage in extended patterns of grooming to do so. There are other categories of worker to whom that applies and I hope the Government will keep an open mind on that.
It is also a core finding of the inquiry that we are failing to properly protect children against the worst kinds of abuse because offenders can travel abroad and find impoverished and vulnerable children to seriously sexually exploit. So I welcome the extension of the sexual harm prevention orders to limit their ability to travel and to give the Secretary of State the right to list countries. We know and the National Crime Agency knows what countries that takes place in. However, to be effective we must also take action against social media companies, which all too often are allowing very violent sexual exploitation to be streamed across their platforms. The abuse happens abroad, it is consumed in the United Kingdom and, if we do not take the opportunity to address that in the online harms Bill, I do not know if we ever will.
Similarly, on managing terrorist risk offenders, I particularly welcome the new powers given to the Parole Board under clause 108 to restrict the release of those who may have been radicalised in prison. This goes directly to the lone wolf attack in Forbury Gardens, on the doorstep of my constituency, where the assailant had been released just 17 days before and it might have changed the outcome.
I want to close by saying something about violence against women. I cannot accept that this Government are not doing all they can to protect women in this Bill, but particularly in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is so rare to have two new sexual offences identified in one piece of legislation, together with the new offence of coercive control.

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend speaks very eloquently about sexual violence against women and we would like to hear more from her.

Laura Farris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
In the last week, a new conversation has crystallised about the safety and dignity of women and their ability to move around in public, and attention must be paid to their voices. I do not think the Bill is the place to rush through new measures or to bolt on new provisions, but I think the Government have an opportunity to begin an important conversation through their VAWG strategy, and I think there is a place for focused legislation on the issue at the end of the year.

Wera Hobhouse: Saturday night saw a peaceful vigil highlighting violence against women ending in scenes of women being forcibly restricted by men. It should have been a moment for women collectively to grieve the tragic loss of a life and publicly express their solidarity, but instead of a moment for reflection on the daily injustices faced by women, this weekend was a powerful reminder of the importance of our civil liberties and the right to protest.
Elements of the Bill are good. The Liberal Democrats support trauma-informed services and strengthening rehabilitation with the aim of reducing reoffending. We also support the police covenant, a measure that helps our police to be a better workforce. The Bill could be made even better by explicitly making misogyny a hate crime. We need to recognise the root causes of violence against women. In the same way that we recognise racial or religious discrimination and homophobia, we can recognise that hatred of women causes harm.
All that important debate is undermined by the part of the Bill on the policing of protests, which is an assault on our civil liberties and our democracy. The Government say they want to clamp down on the most destructive protests, but let us be clear that they aim quite literally to silence protest. The measure is a thinly veiled reaction to the climate protests that have taken place over the past couple of years around Parliament and in cities and towns across the country. The climate emergency has evoked strong feelings, particularly among young people, and it would be quite wrong to curtail their voices.
The whole purpose of demonstrations is to have one’s voice heard, to make an argument, to get the attention of those who make the law and to encourage change. Peaceful protest is at the heart of a liberal democracy. We have taken democracy for granted for a long time. Each generation has to fight for its freedoms. Each generation faces different challenges, but the diverse voices from all sections of our society should never be stifled or suppressed.
Liberalism exists to protect our freedoms, our democracy and our right to protest. If the Government were really serious about protecting women from violence, they would never attempt to silence their protests. That part of the Bill must go.

Mark Francois: I want to concentrate on the provisions of part 4 of the Bill, which deal with the long-standing problem of  unauthorised encampments. Part 4 effectively upgrades acts of deliberate trespass from a civil to a criminal offence. The campaign of those of us who have argued for that change for a number of years now was based on a similar change in the law in the Republic of Ireland several years ago; hence it has often been referred to succinctly as the Irish option. The move has become necessary because of persistent illegal incursions by some individuals, including some members of the travelling community, that have become an increasing problem in many parts of the country, including my home county of Essex, in recent years.
For the record, many Travellers are perfectly law-abiding and have good relations with the settled community. Unfortunately, however, some others are not, and there have been repeated examples of antisocial behaviour and even criminal damage resulting from illegal encampments in recent years in places as varied as village greens, sports grounds and industrial estates. As a civil offence, it has often necessitated local authorities having to go to court, at public expense, to have such incursions moved on, as well as sometimes being involved in the further expense of clean-up operations once illegal sites have been vacated.
Under this Bill, which I am proud to say fulfils a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment, police officers will be given powers to challenge illegal encampments of one vehicle or more. If people wilfully refuse to move on, they can be arrested with a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. Crucially, offenders can also have their property, including their vehicle or vehicles, impounded by the police.
I can assure the House that this important change in the law has proved very popular with my constituents, and I have received many messages of support since it was confirmed last week. In addition, it has also proved popular with the Essex farming community. The county adviser of the National Farmers Union, Dr Jake Richards, sent me this brief message:
“Dear Mr Francois, I am writing to thank you on behalf of the NFU and the farmers in your constituency for your support and for the Commitment from fellow Essex MP, Rt Hon Priti Patel, on Monday when she announced that changes to the law were being brought forward as part of a new major criminal justice bill to be introduced to Parliament imminently. The changes proposed will be most welcome by our Members.”
Our industrious Essex police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, also warmly welcomed adding these powers to the statute book.
In summary, I hope and believe that these tough new powers will act as a genuine deterrent to illegal encampments in future and should thus lead to improved relations between the travelling and settled communities. I congratulate Ministers, and the Home Secretary in particular, on having the courage to introduce them and, in so doing, fulfilling part of the manifesto on which we were elected in the first place.

Robert Syms: I am particularly pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), because I intend to address virtually the same subject. Poole is a beautiful place. We attract people, and, unfortunately, we attract people with unauthorised encampments. Last summer,  in Poole Park, the cricket pitch was camped on. There was Whitecliff, Sandbanks car park—there are many areas in Poole that face unauthorised encampments, which take away well-used local resources from children and grandchildren, and my constituents.
Part 4 of the Bill was in the 2019 manifesto. I am particularly pleased that the Government have grasped this issue and brought forward this legislation. My constituents could never understand how they had to have licences, obey the law and pay their council tax, but if they stepped on any area that was illegal, they would get arrested by the police, when there are people—

Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Syms: I will.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is the age-old clash between rights and responsibilities? In this case, they have responsibilities but they see others who simply claim they have rights.

Robert Syms: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. What used to happen until recently was that people would turn up, and others would phone the local council, which would say that it could not do much about it. They would then phone the local police, who would say that they could not do much about it—indeed, there have been occasions when the local police have watched people go and set up unauthorised encampments—and then they would phone the Member of Parliament and let him know what they think about him, saying that the Government must do something. It is true that the local authority and the police have had more powers than they have been willing to use, but this is in the “too difficult to deal with” box, so people have just kept their heads down and hoped that, after a week or two, people would move on.
However, this does increase real costs to local authorities, which, apart from cleaning up sites, sometimes have to put special measures in to try to protect sites. Year after year, this costs council tax payers quite a lot of money, so I am very pleased that the Government have put these powers in the Bill. I hope that they survive their passage through the House. They will make a material difference to the quality of life of many of my constituents.
There are issues to do with Travellers that we need to address apart from unauthorised encampments. One of those is the poor educational qualifications that many of their children have—the Government need to pay attention to that to see what more we can do—and another is the health standards of many of these people, who do not access hospitals as easily as the rest of us.
Overall, what the Government are doing is very sensible. This is the sort of Bill that a confident right-of-centre Government should bring in to deal with law and order— not only with Travellers but with many other areas. Personally, I am becoming a great fan of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who instead of talking a good game are actually producing things in legislation that will make a great difference to people’s lives.

Sarah Champion: I welcome parts of this Bill, but there are glaring omissions, especially around violence against women and children. In Rotherham, and across the country, all too often victims  and survivors of crime, especially sexual violence, lack confidence in the system, and this Bill was the opportunity to change that. There are far too many instances where sentencing is too lenient, or indeed where predatory or violent behaviours are not even criminalised.
I am relieved that the Government are finally reintroducing pre-charge bail conditions. Removing them in 2017 led to survivors living in fear of reprisals from their abusers. I also very much welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward the “positions of trust” provisions that make it illegal for faith leaders and sports coaches to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care. However, the Government need to extend this law to cover the likes of driving instructors, youth workers, police officers and private tutors.
I am pleased about the progress on extending the offence of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence to include the rape and abuse of a child, and on stronger sentences for commensurate harm. However, the Bill must be strengthened to address online sexual exploitation. Aggravating factors must be included, as has been done in Australia, when it comes to sentencing. The Bill should be amended to state that approaching a person with regard to child sexual offences also specifically includes doing so online or via other telecommunications.
The provisions on the establishment of a list of countries considered to be at high risk of child sexual exploitation or abuse by UK nationals need to include countries that are at risk from UK citizens who commit abhorrent crimes online. Too often, I hear of UK nationals remotely directing abuse of, often, Filipino children from their own homes. Currently, there is a loophole in the law whereby a registered sex offender can change their name through deed poll and then go under the radar of the authorities. Alarmingly, I recently uncovered the fact that over 16,000 sex offenders breached their notification requirements in the past five years, which means that they disappeared from the system set up to monitor them.
Finally, I am astounded that while the Bill makes several changes to procedures in courts and tribunals, the Government have not used it as an opportunity to further improve support for victims and witnesses of sexual abuse.
Tragic events of the past week have shown just how important this Bill is. For too long, abuse, and particularly violence against women and girls, has gone on unchecked and survivors have been left to deal with a system that is not only not working but often making their situation worse. Crimes against women often specifically occur because they are women. These crimes are not gender neutral, so the law should not be either. We must consider a definition in terms of making misogyny a hate crime.

Andrea Leadsom: The appalling events of recent days have caused great anger and anxiety. My inbox has many emails calling for curfews on men and many others calling for greater understanding that not all men are perpetrators. At such a difficult time, we must find the right balance between personal freedom and state intervention, but also recognise how vital it is that we teach our boys and our girls the profound importance of mutual respect.
In speaking in this Second Reading debate, I want to focus on a measure in the Bill that I think everyone can get behind—giving the police new powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. For my constituents, that cannot come soon enough. In late 2019, a plot of floodplain near Northampton was sold privately, and then, in the middle of 2020, it was auctioned off to potential developers. The sales were under false pretences because planning consent would never be granted on a floodplain. Then in August 2020, as local residents had feared, a large number of vehicles entered the site and set up an unauthorised encampment. From August to October, the local community was witness to huge piles of commercial waste entering the site and being dumped on the floodplain and in the River Nene, and multiple vehicles with no tax or MOT, some with false plates, entering and leaving the site. There were regular bonfires with acrid black smoke, and visible payment being taken for third parties entering the site to dispose of builders’ waste.
Local residents suffered verbal and racial abuse and antisocial behaviour, including rocks being thrown at passing cars, air rifles being shot, quad bikes being ridden at all hours and dogs running loose around the streets. Residents endured months of real fear and did everything they could to provide evidence to their parish and borough council and the local police. Finally, in October last year, the combined efforts of Northants police and the borough council got the Travellers off the land.
A political philosophy that has always chimed with me is that of John Stuart Mill. In setting out to describe the parameters of individual freedom, he said that we should all be free to do exactly as we like, provided that we are not impeding someone else’s freedom to do exactly as they like. That is a difficult balance to achieve in real life, but where the rights of communities versus the rights of Travellers are concerned, there can be no doubt that facilitating a Traveller’s way of life must not necessitate the misery and fear that was caused for my constituents. Many will be heartily delighted with this new measure, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to the huge majority across the country who want to see greater protections from unauthorised encampments.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: This is a Trojan horse Bill, and the Home Secretary is Sinon at the gates of Troy saying, “I’m the only one left! Please let me in with this fantastic Bill that’s going to do all the things that you Opposition Back Benchers have been asking me to do.” Well, we see that hidden in the Bill, there are some nasty and pernicious laws. Many of the good things in the Bill could be achieved by either amending or bringing forward separate Bills, such as the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill, promoted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Instead, the Government have put forward a Bill that is so big, so expansive and so diverse that it covers two Departments, so that they can squeeze the good things in as well as those that deny the rights of people. If we allowed this to stand, every Government would do it,  would they not? They would put pernicious rules into what, in public speaking, we call a “something sandwich”, where you put the bad in the middle and sandwich it with the good. That is what the Bill is. I will come on to what the particularly bad things are, but there are also great missed opportunities. I sat on the upskirting Bill Committee. We pushed amendments, and the Government accepted that they would explore bringing forward misogyny as a hate crime. Where is that in this Bill? That could have been included, and it is so disappointing that it is not. There are clearly missed opportunities.
Part 3 of the Bill is particularly problematic, and notably the use of the phrase “serious unease”. To tell the truth, I find myself feeling serious unease when certain Government Members speak and I disagree with them, but in a democracy, I can feel unease, disagree and even think that they are saying things that are offensive, but they are not criminalised. During the Brexit debates, in the main, the protests outside this place by UKIP and Brexit party supporters and by the remainers were eccentric and annoying to many of us at the time, but to me, it summarised the beauty of British democracy when those peaceful protesters, sometimes of opposing forces, were ringing bells and shouting into horns. Now there is the idea that the police could say, “You’ve gone a decibel over—you’re a criminal.” Many of the people on protests will not even know that the police have laid orders down, because it will not be widely known, so we will be criminalising people without them even knowing it.
I have not even got on to some of the really pernicious measures in the Bill, such as those on Traveller communities. If we had decent move-on sites and decent support from local authorities and made sure that we worked with the community, we could resolve the problems. Surrey has no move-on sites whatsoever—no wonder there are problems in that county. Those are the things we need to deal with rather than criminalising. The idea that someone in a layby over one night could be considered a criminal—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I was so carried away with the hon. Gentleman’s rhetoric that I did not notice he had exceeded his three minutes. I apologise to everybody else.

Gareth Johnson: I welcome the Bill, which seeks to inject fairness into the criminal justice system and rights many wrongs currently in existence. The protection that clause 46 gives to war memorials and wreaths laid on them is admirable, and I am glad that the provision is being introduced. To desecrate a memorial is a particularly low thing to do and the law should reflect that.
May I also welcome the changes to sentencing powers to allow for life imprisonment for death by dangerous driving? In too many cases, the courts have been unable to deal with these matters effectively and consequently they have given inadequate sentences for even the worst incidents. That will stop, and we will all be safer as a consequence. I have to say, it would have helped if the Crown Prosecution Service had been more minded to lay manslaughter charges in many such instances. It seems to be only on the road that an offence can happen in which someone carries out a deliberate action that creates an obvious risk that is against the law, and yet  the CPS is reluctant to lay manslaughter charges. That will change because of these proposals, which I welcome with open arms.
The serious violence reduction orders to be brought in by the Bill are truly groundbreaking. Knife crime is an evil that destroys lives and terrifies communities, but the Bill gives the police powers to make a difference. However, we do not want knives simply to be replaced as the weapon of choice by acid, so I ask the Minister to consider including the possession of noxious liquids in the provisions. That would build on the massive improvements that both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have achieved in reducing the number of such attacks.
Finally, we need to counter the serious misinformation that has been spread about proposals in the Bill to place conditions on demonstrations. The proposed extra powers are not a ban on protests—far from it. There must always be a right to protest, but there must always be rights for those going about their business, too. The Bill seeks to balance those competing rights. It will allow protests, vigils, demonstrations and marches, but not the blocking of bridges or stopping traffic and bringing cities to a standstill. Protests, yes; causing serious disruption to others, no. The Labour party’s voting against the Bill is totally wrong. The message needs to go out loud and clear that Labour Members are voting against provisions to extend sentences for death by dangerous driving, child killers, and serious violence and knife crime. They should vote for the Bill.

Alex Davies-Jones: The last few weeks have been incredibly difficult for women across the country. Sarah Everard’s death is utterly tragic. My thoughts are with her family and friends, as well as with all those who have lost a loved one to male violence.
It is clear to me that Saturday evening in Clapham was supposed to be a peaceful vigil, not a protest. I have spent the last few weeks speaking to women overwhelmed by their feelings of grief and anger. I have spoken to those who feel a little less safe on our streets, those who worry about the world in which their daughters will grow up, and those for whom recent events have brought back their own experiences of trauma, harassment and violence. Campaigns such as the #MeToo movement have ensured that conversations on abuse and violence are finally reaching the mainstream discourse, yet women are not under any illusions. We have spoken out against male violence in all its forms for decades, and I am frustrated and appalled that only now are we being listened to. What is in the Bill for us? How does it protect us? How does it address the scandalous prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault? How does it make women safer on the streets? The simple answer is: it does nothing. Increasing sentences for serious crimes is important, but there is little point if criminals never get to court to be sentenced, as is the case in 99% of rapes. Instead of prioritising victims, the Bill curbs our rights. It makes it harder for us to protest when the Government get things wrong and put the protection of statues above the protection of women.
While I welcome the measures in clause 45 that will extend the existing positions of trust offences, some alarming gaps remain. I am hugely concerned that those  provisions will not be applicable in all the circumstances in which they have the power to make a difference. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling, I am hugely disturbed that the provisions set out in clause 45 will not protect those in the wrestling industry. Colleagues may not be aware that wrestling was devastated by the #SpeakingOut movement, which documented horrific tales throughout the industry, including threats of rape and sexual abuse. Some of the victims facing abhorrent abuse have been children as young as 13.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that we do not want perpetrators of sexual offences to fall through a loophole in this legislation, yet because professional wrestling is not classed as a sport and as such does not have a governing body, it is at risk of doing just that. I urge the Minister to commit to meeting me and my colleagues in the APPG on wrestling to talk about the potential avenues to include appropriate protections for young wrestlers in this Bill.
Actions speak louder than words. To quote a heroine of mine, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on what would have been her 88th birthday:
“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.”
The Government need to recognise that we need to take that step, and that we are at a crossroads with a real opportunity to change the lived reality for women and girls in this country. I plead with the Minister to work with the Labour party to ensure that women and girls are safer on our streets and in their homes, to work with us to ensure that the right to protest is not reduced and that voices across the country are not silenced—to work with us to finally do the right thing.

Lee Anderson: Now then, no one should feel unsafe in our country, and this Bill will be of great comfort to law-abiding British people who want to see greater powers for our police and tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and anyone else who thinks they are above the law. If you cannot live by the rules of our society, then you should live in a place that has a different set of rules, and that place is prison. The good news is that we are recruiting 10,000 extra prison officers and 20,000 new police officers, and we are building more prisons.
Post covid, people want to return to safe streets and safer neighbourhoods. This Bill does that. This Bill ensures that the victims of crime are put first. I find it strange that Labour is talking about tougher sentences for crimes against women, yet in December it tried to stop us deporting foreign rapists. One Labour MP said we should not deport those criminals in December as it was too close to Christmas. I disagree; I thought it was a great Christmas present.
Labour says that this Bill will remove the right to protest. Rubbish. This Bill will protect peaceful protests from being hijacked by trouble-causing agitators. Labour’s idea of peaceful protests are the ones we saw in Whitehall last year, where police were attacked, our flag was burned and memorials were damaged, while its own MPs looked on and said nothing. That was disgraceful.
We have a Home Secretary who is brave enough to tackle the issue of illegal camps. Those camps have made the lives of Ashfield residents a misery. When they are set up, crime rises, locals feel intimidated and the council  is left with a massive clean-up bill. This Bill puts a stop to that nonsense. Police in Ashfield are doing a great job, but I know they are frustrated by short sentences and weak bail conditions. This Bill will give our police extra powers and the extra confidence they need.
I am confused that the shadow Home Secretary said tonight that he agrees with lots of things in the Bill, yet he will vote against it, proving once again that Labour is on the side of the criminals. Before lockdown, residents would often see me sat in the front of a police car going out on patrol and supporting our police, which is in sharp contrast to some Labour politicians, who have been seen in the back of police cars on the way to the station. It comes as no surprise to me that Labour will not support this Bill, after reading this week that there are 14 leading Labour politicians who have been arrested, imprisoned or under investigation in the past six months. There is no wonder we need more prisons.

Toby Perkins: We will try to get back to some sense of reality after the nonsense we have just heard.
This is a really important and wide-ranging Bill, and there are many aspects that I and my colleagues welcome. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their success in securing the “protect the protectors” aspects of this Bill; my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing reform of the Disclosure and Barring Service; and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for her work that has led to the dangerous driving reforms. All those things and more deserve support. It is a testament to the Home Secretary’s insatiable desire for conflict that a Bill that contains so many measures campaigned for and fought for by Labour MPs should still be impossible to support.
What a missed opportunity this Bill is. There is nothing that will make a significant difference on the issue of violence against women and nothing on victim support, despite what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the Tories being a party that supports victims. Indeed, it considers protecting statues a greater priority than protecting rape victims. The events of this weekend have brought into sharp relief where a civilised society must allow protest and support our police to keep our streets safe from criminals, not instruct them to arrest peaceful and grieving women.
We can easily see why this division is a political strategy of Conservative Members. Listening to speeches like that of the hon. Gentleman, it is very clear that they want to introduce elements that we will all agree with, and then introduce one or two elements that we cannot possibly agree with in order to say that we are preventing the good parts of this Bill. It is absolute cheap politics, and it is the politics of division. This is a Government who have frozen police pay, cut police numbers, and let criminals off the hook due to backlogs in the courts and overcrowding in our prisons. There can be no doubt but that they are no friends of the police.
Before I finish, I want to take a moment on someone who is a friend of the police—the police and crime commissioner for Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa. I was extremely proud that my county, Derbyshire, where less than 5% of residents are BAME, was the first area to elect a BAME police and crime commissioner. Five years on, we are even prouder. Hardyal promised he would set up a programme in every village and town in the county. Not only has he done that, but he has met residents right across our county, while fiercely fighting the corner of our dedicated police both in Government and in the media. He has never forgotten who he is there to represent, and if the police get it wrong, as they did when Derbyshire police published pictures of dog walkers in the Peak or fined people walking five miles from home, he has been quick to be the voice of the people, not hidden away from a difficult situation. I hope he gets people’s support on 6 May.

Tim Loughton: This is a substantial and impressive Bill. Many of the policies in it predate the 2019 general election and some featured in the September 2020 White Paper, so they are certainly not measures that are being rushed through. It is difficult, in the space of three minutes, to do justice to the 296 pages, 176 clauses and 20 schedules, so let me just name check a few of the parts I particularly support.
I support putting the police covenant into law at last and the increase in penalties for assaults on emergency workers. It is incredible that we are having to contemplate that. I support the allowance for police officers faced with dangerous high-speed car chases in pursuit of dangerous criminals who are done themselves for dangerous driving; they are just doing their job. I am pleased we are toughening provisions on criminal damage to memorials, especially military memorials. I support tougher penalties for causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving and tougher sentencing of child murderers. I support scrapping the early release of terrorist offenders, innovation in probation with the use of curfews and community sentencing, and clamping down on sex tourism.
There are lots of sensible, practical and much-awaited measures in this Bill that the vast majority of our law-abiding constituents will certainly welcome, but of course Labour is voting against all of these tonight. It has not even bothered to table a reasoned amendment to let the Bill proceed and then scrutinise it in Committee. Apparently, it is just a blanket vote against the whole of the Bill and all the measures in it. Labour Members may try to claim that they have objections to the new public demonstration conditions proposed for preventing serious disruption to the life of the community or recklessly causing public nuisance, and they may claim that in some way it suppresses free speech, but if they really do have such concerns, they should support the Bill and argue for improvements in Committee. However, people gluing themselves to tubes to disrupt the whole London underground system, clambering on to planes to shut down airports, preventing an ambulance reaching an emergency department through protesters, preventing the distribution of a free press, or assaulting police officers to get to, violate and vandalise war memorials does nothing to further free speech, free association or any democratic process. Ordinary law-abiding people should not have to put up with it, and there are many thresholds and conditions in this Bill.
I specifically welcome measures to extend the definitions in relation to those who abuse positions of trust by engaging in sexual activity with minors. The Bill specifically references sports coaches and faith leaders. However, private tutors, including music teachers, are exempt from many of the safeguarding checks that we rightly expect of mainstream employed teachers. Can we consider including them, as I tried to do many years ago as Children’s Minister?
I warmly welcome the measures to criminalise trespass when it results in unauthorised encampments, causing damage in order to access private and community property, trashes the cricket pitch or village green when it happens, and prevents local people using the amenities that they pay for. To add insult to injury, these unauthorised encampments eventually leave the site scarred with fly-tipping, everything from building waste to human waste, and then they come back and repeat it all over again in a few years’ time. It is not acceptable. This Bill will clamp down on it at last, and I support it.

Apsana Begum: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this incredible important and timely debate.
Those of us who continuously rejected the recent Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill did so partly because of the impact that it would have on the freedom to protest. That freedom is being challenged yet again today, through the authoritarian measures proposed in this Bill.
This weekend, people across the country watched in horror the visual evidence of the disgraceful police action towards peaceful attendees of a vigil to mourn the murder of Sarah Everard and to express a collective anger and despair that so many women still suffer violence at the hands of men as part of their everyday life. Despite the Government’s attempt to conjure up smoke and mirrors earlier today, a spot of damage control if you like, this incident exactly demonstrates that there are still serious questions about the powers that our police forces have, the way that these powers are executed, towards whom they are targeted, how they are scrutinised, and how those with such powers are held to account.
The Government regularly express their concern about human rights in other countries. If enacted, however, the Bill before the House today would
“expose already marginalised communities to profiling and disproportionate police powers through the expansion of stop and search, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities may face increased police enforcement through the criminalisation of trespass.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the director of the well-respected human rights organisation, Liberty.
Protests are often a space for the most marginalised to make their voices heard. In the past year, we have seen that in the Black Lives Matter protests and we have seen it over this past weekend. Just as police rode into protesters on horses last year, so, too, did they violently grab women on Saturday night.
Freedom of speech intrinsically linked to the freedom of protest should be enshrined in our legislation so that it is available to all. The Bill, however, would give the Government even more power to decide whether a protest should be allowed to go ahead. Given that our current Home Secretary refers to anti-racist Black Lives  Matter protesters as “thugs”, it is no wonder that people up and down the country are alarmed. The crux of the matter goes beyond that. The right to protest must be protected or else we find ourselves on an extremely worrying path, with a totalitarian Government able to silence whoever they choose.
Despite the rhetoric, all evidence indicates that this Bill is unlikely even to cut crime and to make those whom it intends to protect safer. Successive Governments have brought in longer sentences and created even more prison places, and that has not reduced crime or slowed the rate of offending.
The impact of this Bill will be felt by marginalised communities more than any other. It will be felt by women, unable to protest at the everyday violence they face. It will be felt by ethnic minority communities, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, trade unions, anti-racist campaigners and climate emergency campaigners—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am afraid we must leave it there.

Sarah Dines: I welcome the Bill and the extensive improvements that it will make to the justice and policing systems. I will mention just a few of the many new provisions that have been the subject of much correspondence to me as the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire Dales.
I am pleased that the Government have been prepared to deliver on their manifesto commitments as opposed to changing them as they go along, as those on the Opposition Benches often do. This is what the majority of my constituents voted for. I was pleased to hear from a fellow MP for Derbyshire, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). I am disappointed that he will not be supporting the Bill, because I fear that he may well be out of tune with his constituents.
Over decades, the people of Derbyshire Dales have been plagued by illegal encampments. The disruption and damage caused by these illegal encampments have hugely distressed my constituents who have often taken months to resolve these issues only for them literally to appear again up the road. There have been substantial issues in Ashbourne, Matlock and Bakewell, which have caused huge upset, mess, and expense to Derbyshire Dales District Council and its good residents.
The Bill criminalises trespass and strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. Under the new legislation, the police will have the power to seize vehicles, at last and to arrest or fine trespassers who intend to reside on public and private land without permission, while ensuring that they are not able to return for at least 12 months. The new criminal offence is much to be welcomed—up to three months in prison or £2,500. That is what my constituents, and people across most of the country, have been demanding.
I support the provisions to double the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. It is ironic that Labour Members wish to increase sentences for offences such as rape, but are intent on voting against those provisions. It makes no sense whatsoever. I fully support the extension of the law on positions of trust. As a mother of four young  men who were once young teenagers, I am reassured that the Government are at last prepared to do something regarding sports coaches and religious leaders, and ensure that our children are safe. It is a landmark step forward and I am grateful for it.
On war memorials, I felt sick to the pit of my stomach to see Churchill’s statue jeered at and sprayed with cans of paint, and I take my hat off to my hon. Friends, some of whom are in the Chamber, who cleared it up. I am surprised that Labour Members will oppose some of these common-sense measures, and it is a testament to just how out of touch they are, and how difficult it will be for them to win the trust of voters. Conservative Members will fulfil our promises, and ensure that the manifesto pledges are kept.

Chris Bryant: I confess that I feel saddened and ashamed nearly every year when we come to International Women’s Day, because we have to listen, again, to a litany of the number of women who have been killed by their partner, nearly always in cases of domestic abuse, and sometimes with their child. That has been my experience as an MP in the Rhondda, as nearly all the murders that have happened in my patch over 20 years have been of that exact same situation. What makes me ashamed is that the situation does not seem to improve year on year.
Perhaps three or four times in my life have I worried for my safety on my way home, and last week I felt ashamed to know so many female friends and constituents who say that that is their experience every time they go home. The Rhondda is remarkably safe. We have a very low level of crime. It is a safe place, yet a poll—not a scientific poll but one done by a local firm—showed that 84% of women in the Rhondda felt that they had been sexually harassed or been in danger on their way home. We must do a lot more, and we men must walk in women’s shoes—if you don’t mind the pun—a few more times. If that is uncomfortable, all the better. We need to learn the discomfort that many women go through.
I am delighted that the Bill changes the legislation on emergency workers, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill. We had to fight tooth and nail against the Conservative Government of the day to get it in place, but
“more joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”—
and all the rest, and I am delighted that the sinner repenteth and is now sitting on the Front Bench. Of course it is right to have tough laws against an assault on emergency workers, because an assault on an emergency worker is an attack on us all. However, we cannot just change the law; we have to ensure that the police implement that law, that the Crown Prosecution Service pursues it, and that magistrates feel it is important. I am afraid the Government have done nothing on that front since 2018.
Section 25 is about religion and sport and people in a position of trust, and of course we must deal with that. From my experience, I think we must also consider those who coach people in the arts. My worry is about personal freedom, because this is a woolly jumper that snags easily, and once snagged can readily unravel. We must be very careful about the noise provision. I have  been on miners’ marches where we sang so loudly that the walls rocked. I have often been on Pride marches, when I wondered who on earth gave a gay man a whistle in the first place. Noise is part of a protest and part of our freedom.

James Sunderland: I was discussing the Bill with a constituent over the weekend, when, bizarrely, she asked me whether I would be disloyal to my party. Loyalty is clearly an underrated concept, but this is much less about party loyalty and much more about doing the right thing. Those who claim that this Bill is anti-conservative, anti-libertarian, anti-democracy or even that it seeks to ban peaceful protest are wrong; it is actually about the silent majority, promises made in our manifesto, law and order, and the need to take this country to where it needs to be. I will be voting it through.
To me, this is one of the most pro-law and order Bills passed in recent decades. It gives police authorities much more confidence in the job that they have been trusted to do. It enshrines the police covenant into law, increases the maximum penalty from 12 months to two years in prison for assaults or battery against emergency workers, ensures that criminal courts have sufficient sentencing powers and, as we have heard, strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. It also strengthens the management of sex offenders, and of terrorist risk offenders on licence.
I want to focus briefly on one particular aspect of the Bill—namely, the desecration of war memorials. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who is my very good friend, I was one of the signatories to the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, which will now been subsumed into law. I thank the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), and many others for all their support.
Every single war memorial, irrespective of nation, faith or location, serves as a visual reminder of the horrors of war and the appalling conditions that people face when fighting for their country. These names are not just an inscription on stone, but actual human beings who lived, loved and were loved. These heroes had friends and families, and were in the prime of their life when they were taken, so each memorial bears testimony to lives cut short, the anguish suffered by families, the potential that was never fulfilled, the children that were never born and the guilt suffered by those who did come home. That is why we must ensure that all war memorials are sufficiently protected in law, and that those who seek to damage them through wilful ignorance or stupidity are brought to justice. This Bill is excellent, and I will not hesitate to vote it through the House.

Charlotte Nichols: The Government published this blockbuster omnibus Bill last week and rushed it through to the Commons, hoping to swell a law and order narrative ahead of the local elections to distract from the Government’s widespread failings. Along with many sensible and necessary changes to the law that Labour MPs have called for—on child protection, dangerous driving, protecting frontline workers  and supporting deaf people to act as jurors—the Bill acts as a Trojan horse to push through divisive culture war issues, including specific offences on damaging statues and cracking down on the public’s right to protest.
Ministers somehow did not foresee that law and order means more than the elements that they have chosen for this Bill. It means keeping women safe. It means supporting women who have suffered violence or sexual violence to come forward, prosecuting the offenders and achieving convictions. It means ensuring that the police and others in authority are held accountable to the public needs, and, yes, it means that the rights to protest, and to express grief and anger, are protected. Is it not a remarkably sad irony that this Bill claims to protect memorials, but could be used to criminalise vigils?
Of course, Ministers should have been able to foresee that violence against women could return to the top of the public’s priorities. Sarah Everard’s tragic death has resonated so viscerally with women not because it was unique, but because, sadly, it was all too typical; she could have been any of us. Last week in the International Women’s Day debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out the list of 118 women and girls, aside from Sarah, who were killed by men in the past year—one every three days. The real question is how women’s safety ever dropped from the top of the agenda, and yet this Bill never once mentions women.
According to recent figures, 97% of women aged 18 to 24 have experienced sexual harassment, yet the Bill does nothing to address that scourge. Even fly-tipping could get a longer sentence than stalking. As others have pointed out—irrefutably, at a time when less than 3% of rapes even reported to the police lead to charges, let alone convictions—rape has effectively been decriminalised. Last year, rape prosecutions fell to the lowest level on record. Even when a conviction is achieved, sentences can be as short as five years—half of what the Government think is appropriate for despoiling a statue. Addressing this horrifying situation in line with the demands made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) should surely be the centrepiece of legislation that is called the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the measures she has called for are not even a consideration. I cannot support a Bill that puts protecting monuments ahead of protecting women. Women need concrete action from this Government, not action on concrete.

Jonathan Gullis: This Bill delivers on the manifesto commitments on which the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke elected me. I am particularly pleased that the Government have adopted proposals from the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I worked on together, to ensure that in every town, village or city across our United Kingdom, thugs who desecrate war memorials will feel the full force of the law. Judges will now be able to consider more than just the monetary value of damage to these sacred memorials to our glorious dead when they pass a sentence—which may be a maximum of 10 years, but that will not be the case in every instance, as some Opposition Members are trying to make out.
I want personally to thank the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor for our meetings and close work on this aspect of the legislation. I am troubled to see some Labour Members deriding and demeaning this important work. That conflicts directly with the advice given to the Labour party from a leaked sensitive internal strategy document, which said that Labour Members should make “use” of the Union flag and veterans. The fact that the Labour party want to make use of such things, rather than being proud enough to believe and willing to fight for them, is embarrassing.
I have been fortunate to see the incredible work undertaken by Staffordshire police locally, whether that is by meeting PC Karl Mander and his police dog Audi, who was stabbed in service, leading to the first conviction under Finn’s law, or walking the beat with PCSO Matthew Hough-Clewes last week in a local anti-social behaviour hotspot. This legislation is important in giving our police and our courts the powers and guidance they need to keep us safe, so I am left baffled by Labour’s position.
Desperately scrambling for a reason to vote against, Labour Members claim the new law will silence lawful protests. This is simply not the case. In fact, the Bill simply clarifies the existing common law offence of public nuisance. As a constituent who emailed me today said,
“if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.”
However, if someone wants to block roads and stop ambulances getting sick people into hospital, or glue themselves to a train so people miss a day’s work, the police will now be able to take action, preventing eye-watering costs like the £37 million that Extinction Rebellion’s 2019 protests cost the UK taxpayer.
To sum up, when I vote for this Bill, I will be voting for tougher sentences for child murderers and sex offenders, life sentences for killer drivers, ending the automatic early release of the most dangerous criminals, greater protections for our emergency service workers and delivering Kay’s law, which will help to protect women from their abusers. Those are the sorts of things that people in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke expect to get done, and I will proudly do so.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I have looked at what this rushed and punitive Bill will do for Wales, and I have found it wanting. It will infringe our right to protest, worsen inequality and lead to a yet more unjust society. This Government are not interested in seriously tackling the underlying causes of crime. They would rather overlook the cycle of offending while clamping down on dissent. The Labour party’s U-turn from abject abstention to principled opposition within the space of one hour yesterday showed that its leaders also have scant regard for the consequences of the Bill.
The Government display yet again a wilful ignorance of devolution, and the Bill’s “designed by England, for England” approach will further aggravate the damage caused by the jagged edge of justice policy in Wales. It shows that Wales needs control over justice now more than ever, so that we can develop a holistic approach that interconnects with our health, education and social policies.
The Bill’s erosion of the right to protest is antithetical to Wales’s values. We have a proud history of protesting against injustice, from non-conformism to Chartism, the miners’ strike, Welsh language rights protests and the present-day independence movement marches. The right to make peaceful protest against iniquity is something that lies deep within our culture. The Bill will also entrench Wales’s status as a nation of incarceration. Wales has a higher imprisonment rate even than England, and one that disproportionately affects black people, who are imprisoned at six times the rate of white people in Wales. The Bill will criminalise more young people and increase the number of vulnerable women entering prison, yet still tolerate the circumstances in which women such as Wenjing Lin and Sarah Everard were killed, all the while doing nothing to address the structural problems of the justice system in Wales, faced with disproportionate cuts to court numbers and support services.
The current system is failing. We could do so much better in Wales if we had proper control over policing and criminal justice. We could deliver a more humane justice system—one that enables equality, dignity and social justice, and that would allow us to tackle the root causes of crime, promote community support, tackle gender-based violence, root out structural racism, give victims a fair voice and protect our communities by prioritising the complex task of rehabilitation over the tabloid policing Acts of punishment—and a fair and just Wales for all. This is the nation we can be not if, but when we give ourselves the chance.

Kate Osborne: During this pandemic, the Government have handed enormous powers to the police to enforce lockdown restrictions, leading to a situation where the police are now policing the coronavirus regulations as a public order problem, rather than a public health matter. It has led to dangerous lines being crossed. We must not forget that while this type of state violence was made visible at the weekend, it is the case that these tactics have been used to protect powerful interests throughout our history. It was seen during the miners’ strike, and it was seen last year as a response to the Black Lives Matter protests.
In a democratic society, policing requires consent and understanding of the public mood. We are seeing a huge overreach and a situation where women have been criminalised while attending a peaceful vigil. Recent events have left women feeling even less empowered in our society. For the police to say to women, “The way you can protect yourself is to stay at home”, is just not good enough.
It comes as no surprise that within this Bill there is no mention of women, whereas the word “memorial” appears eight times. The Bill seeks to ensure that attacking a statue carries a longer sentence than attacking a woman. What kind of message does that send about this Government’s attitude to tackling the endemic issue of violence against women and girls?
The Bill disproportionately impacts Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by criminalising trespass and increasing police powers of eviction. It will increase the inequalities experienced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller  communities and ensure that discrimination against those communities is still alive and well as an acceptable form of racism in this country. The Bill also extends the definition of “unauthorised encampment”, which in effect criminalises the increasing numbers of rough sleepers.
I believe the right to protest is sacred in any democracy, so I will be voting against this Bill, because it is an assault on our civil liberties, threatens what remains of our rights to protest, expands stop and search powers and further criminalises Traveller communities. The Government must think again and listen to the vast public anger regarding this Bill. I reject the politics of division laid out by the Government in this Bill, and I ask Members across the House to do the same.

Nigel Evans: Kate was dead on time, and I will now be strict as far as the time limit is concerned. Please do not exceed it.

Dehenna Davison: Three minutes is limited, so I will focus on one core aspect of the Bill. I got my first taste of the criminal justice system when I was 13. My dad went to the pub and never came home after receiving a single blow to the head that killed him instantly. From never really having dealings with the criminal justice system, my family was thrust into a whirlwind of police meetings, lawyers’ appointments and court dates, all while trying to deal with the suffocating grief of losing my dad, and that has given me a deep desire to ensure that the criminal justice system works for the victims of crime.
I recently launched an all-party parliamentary group to investigate the rare but damaging phenomenon of one-punch assaults, with an emphasis on sentencing. I wish now that I had been able to get started earlier to feed in some meaningful and evidence-backed proposals to this Bill, but I am grateful to the Justice Secretary none the less for agreeing to meet next week to discuss the APPG’s work. I hope that together we can make some progress in delivering a fairer sense of justice for the left-behind families of one-punch assault victims.
The events that followed losing my dad were the darkest times I have ever known, but in those dark times were points of light in the incredible police officers who helped to support our family. I particularly pay tribute once again to Karen Cocker and Sue Best, our family liaison officers, without whom we would not have been able to navigate the court process with our sanity intact.
After scenes such as those we saw reported at the weekend, it becomes somewhat trendy to turn against our police and denigrate those who devote their lives to keeping us safe. The unfairness of all police being tarred with the same brush based on the actions of a tiny minority is surely something with which we can empathise in this place, given the unfairness of all politicians being held to account for the actions of the worst of us.
Since I was 13, I have had the utmost respect for our police. They run into the face of danger while we run away, stand face to face with armed criminals to keep us safe and are at the frontline of major national crises. The national policing wellbeing survey revealed that a shocking 67% of police officers report post-traumatic stress symptoms and that the average officer shows  moderately high symptoms of anxiety. That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Conservative party manifesto commitment to deliver the police covenant—the people of Bishop Auckland elected me on that commitment, which we will deliver through this Bill.
It is our duty to protect the mental health and wellbeing of the police, just as it is their duty to protect us. The Bill will make it a legal requirement for the Home Secretary to report to Parliament each year on what steps they are taking on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of police personnel and their families. Through the Bill, we are also ensuring that our incredible police officers have the powers they need to keep us safe and to secure prosecutions. We are seeking to protect the public and to protect our protectors, both police officers and emergency service workers. I finish with a question. What message does it send that the Labour party is voting against this?

Rachael Maskell: Tonight, I pay my respects to the life of Sarah Everard. As she grew up in York, her loss is deeply felt by me and my community.
Extraordinary liberties have been relinquished to ensure that we kept safe during this last year, but when our liberties are stolen—and, I say this as a woman, at the very time we need them most—the measures in the Bill can only be described as repressive. We have a justice system that is institutionally discriminatory against women; that does not secure high-quality representation for them, that fails to prosecute the most heinous of crimes, that delays cases for years without survivors being able to access vital and necessary trauma services, and that completely fails to keep women safe. The Home Secretary was remiss in her opening speech, since the Bill fails women, fails society and fails to advance our justice. Now is the time when we need to take to the streets and reclaim them, yet the Bill threatens to criminalise us for using our power to force Government and their institutions to change. With economic, social and environmental failure, it is our duty to enable people to exercise their rights, but part 3 of the Bill restrains them.
Let me move on to part 4. I shudder at how the Government are drawing on the darkest periods of history by criminalising Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. This demonstrates that the hostile environment continues to fester in the Home Office, and it must be called out.
Before I close, I want to focus on clause 45. I have made a number of representations to Justice and Home Office Ministers, so they will know what I am about to say. It is not just in sport and religious settings where young people have been groomed and abused. My constituent received private tuition—music coaching—and was groomed for two years before being raped. Her case was one of the 99% of rape cases reported, but not prosecuted. Her perpetrator, now known for sexual impropriety, had no DBS check. If he had, she would have been safe. She was failed, and the Bill fails her and many more. All private tuition settings need full safeguarding checks and measures to be introduced. Secondly, host families of international students accommodate young people of different cultures and language. They need the protections covered by clause 45 too. I trust that the Minister will support such amendments.
The Bill is woefully insufficient when it comes to protection yet overtly hostile in disallowing people their rights and their voice. I came to this Parliament to fight for equality, protect the rights of my constituents and advance justice. It is unconscionable not to stand in the way of the repressive ideology advanced in the Bill. I call on the Government to think again and I will vote against the Bill.

Rachel Hopkins: The right to take non-violent individual and collective action is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is being rushed through, and it is ill thought out, with glaring failures, including authoritarian provisions such as those in part 3 that threaten our right to protest. Restricting the freedom of assembly and association contravenes article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and significant concerns have been raised by trade unions, human rights groups, lawyers, activists and even the ex-chief constable of Greater Manchester.
The imposition of additional conditions on protests, such as being too noisy, simply look like an anti-democratic direct attack on particular social movements at odds with the Government’s agenda. This Bill represents an attack on the public’s freedom of speech, impacting on our fight for race and gender equality, against the climate emergency and for improved workers’ rights. Our country has a proud history of collective action, and I want to express my solidarity with those who attended Clapham common on Saturday to remember Sarah Everard and who were treated disgracefully. What we saw contradicts any notion that there needs to be an extension to the powers to oversee protests. Indeed, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), has previously stated that
“legislation already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others.”
Instead of ever more draconian powers, effective policing requires community consent, and to achieve that, there needs to be greater transparency and accountability for the way that protests are policed. I am pleased that David Michael, the Labour Bedfordshire police and crime commissioner candidate, who grew up in Luton, recognises that and is committed to using his experience in the police, together with his understanding of our community, to ensure trust between Bedfordshire police and the community it serves.
Placing more restrictions on people’s ability to gather and protest will not make the public safer. In fact, it is the opposite. It will trample on our ability to stand up for our human rights and against injustice. The Home Secretary focused her remarks on wanting to support women to feel safe while walking down the street, but heaven forbid we do so a bit too noisily, a bit too annoyingly or a bit too near our elected representatives in order to stand up for our human rights.
Individual and collective action is something to be celebrated and encouraged in a functioning democracy. I owe it to the women role models who stood up for what they believed in and shaped my political awareness as a teenager—be it those at the Greenham common women’s peace camp, the Women Against Pit Closures or those marching against apartheid in South Africa—as  much as I owe it to those women now or who will come after me, to not let our right to protest, be it noisy or annoying, be slowly eroded.

Stuart Anderson: I am glad to be speaking about this eagerly awaited Bill because of its importance for the residents of Wolverhampton. I have campaigned and will continue to do so for a safer and cleaner Wolverhampton. I want the residents to be able to walk clean streets day or night and feel safe.
I fully support the Bill and know that it will be welcomed by many of my constituents. I believe in tougher sentencing for child murderers and sex offenders. I approve of the crackdown on knife crime and violent crime, especially to protect emergency workers. Last year, I conducted a community survey. One of the top areas of concern for my residents—even in a pandemic—was crime. Residents are always getting in touch with me about different issues that the Bill addresses. They do not want to see thefts, fly-tipping and unauthorised encampments, and that last point has probably caused me more work than anything as an MP.
Wolverhampton has beautiful parks such as Bantock and West Park, and over the years, these have been home to unauthorised encampments. I want to make it clear that the majority of the Traveller community are law-abiding citizens who cause no trouble in the local community. We in Wolverhampton did see that, but we have also experienced major problems. To deal with that, Wolverhampton Council took out an injunction, giving it extra powers to move unauthorised encampments. Part of the injunction was to build a transit site. I have no problem with that, and I understand that there needs to be a place for the Traveller community to visit. The site chosen was Gorsebrook Road in Dunstall, which is still one of the most deprived areas in Wolverhampton. It was not welcomed by the residents or by the Traveller community. The cost to build the transit site, in an area that I have championed as a nature trail for local schools and residents, is £1 million. The Bill will negate the need for an injunction at the transit site in its current form. I know that work is under way, but I will continue to ask City of Wolverhampton Council, as I do again now, to pause the work, wait for the legislation to be passed, save money, develop the nature trail and build a legacy for generations to come.

Kim Johnson: The scenes at Clapham common this weekend exposed a disgraceful abuse of power by the Metropolitan police. However, for too many of us, the scenes did not shock; they have become worryingly familiar. From the miners protesting at Orgreave and elsewhere in the 1980s to the climate change and Black Lives Matter protests last year, the violent crackdown by police on peaceful demonstrators exercising their right to protest has been routine, systematic and deliberate. Such actions raise the fundamental questions: who do the police protect and who do they serve? This weekend, it was abundantly clear that the answer to both questions was not women.
By making it an offence to cause serious annoyance or inconvenience, the Bill restricts our fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and expression and effectively removes our collective ability to fight back against state abuses of power. The proposals for a new serious violence reduction order will provide greater power to stop and search a person at any time, in any place and completely free of suspicion. There are major criticisms of current stop-and-search powers, which impact disproportionately on black people, particularly in my city of Liverpool. A recent Home Office report identified that black people are 2.7 times more likely to be victims of stop and search and three times more likely to have force used against them. The police do not need more of these powers, which will not protect us.
Some of the Bill’s most disturbing clauses attack the nomadic lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by criminalising unauthorised encampments and establishing trespass as a criminal offence. The proposals are discriminatory and potentially unlawful. The Government’s own consultation on extending the powers showed that even the majority of the police respondents to the consultation think the crackdown is the wrong approach. GRT communities are among the most persecuted and marginalised. In Liverpool, we have a large permanent settlement of GRT families living in my constituency. They face systemic discrimination and routine violence. Instead of supporting these communities, who already face some of the starkest inequalities, the Government seem hellbent on introducing tougher powers to act against them.
The Government’s approach to public safety is fundamentally flawed: it is rooted in discrimination against communities and restrictions to our freedoms rather than a serious attempt to tackle the problems that we face. I appeal to Members from all parties in the House to ensure that this weekend’s horrific scenes mark a serious turning point. The draconian powers in the Bill must be torn up and a new approach to public safety must be pursued—one that puts safety, welfare, justice and accountability at its heart.

Jane Hunt: The first duty of any Government must be to protect the public and keep local communities safe. I know that that belief is shared by many in my constituency, so I welcome this important Bill, which introduces a comprehensive package of measures to achieve just that. Every day, police officers and those in the emergency services put themselves in dangerous situations to keep us safe. Although legislation is in place for the most serious of crimes in this policy area, the sentencing for assaults is too weak. We have a responsibility to ensure that the police and emergency services can carry out their day-to-day duties as safely as possible. The Bill will help to achieve that.
There are many facets to the Bill, but I wish to focus on two particular aspects: bringing people to justice and reducing reoffending. I have been pursuing these issues on behalf of Loughborough since I became an MP and I did so some years ago when I was fortunate enough to chair a panel on reducing reoffending on behalf of Charnwood Borough Council. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let me turn first to the removal of the presumption of release pending investigation and the presumption in favour of pre-charge bail conditions, otherwise known as Kay’s law. The change will provide a duty to protect victims and will enable the setting of conditions while further investigations are undertaken. This is vital both to the safety of the victim and to encourage the reporting of crimes with the knowledge that bail conditions can be imposed to help to safeguard the victim.
I received a number of emails from my constituents who are very concerned about sentencing and I have to agree with them that more needs to be done to ensure that those convicted of the most serious crimes receive appropriate sentences and spend more of their sentences actually in prison. That will not only restore public confidence in the justice system, but crucially ensure that victims, who sadly often bear physical and mental scars of their experience, receive the justice they deserve.
Sentencing, however, is only one side of the coin. I welcome that the Bill also places a strong emphasis on action to reduce reoffending. If we are to break the cycle of reoffending, we must ensure that offenders have every opportunity to break the vicious circle of repeat crime, giving them the chance to get their lives back on track and so reducing the social and economic cost to our communities. The £3 million Newham pilot for youth offenders, set to start in July, is one good example of work to reduce reoffending. The curfew orders set out in the Bill, and the ability to vary those orders, are another excellent example, ensuring people have a role in, and can contribute positively to, society. Work is one of the best ways to draw them away from a life of crime.
I strongly believe that, taken together, the measures in the Bill will have a significant impact on reducing crime and protecting not only the public, but our fantastic emergency workers. I will therefore be supporting the Bill.

Wendy Chamberlain: Like so many others, I was shocked and appalled by the events on Clapham common on Saturday night. It is an outrage that a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Everard was shut down because the Met determined not to engage with organisers to ensure that the vigil could pass off safely. It is very difficult to see how the Met could have got it more wrong, and I say that, as many in this House will know, as a former police officer. The leadership have let down rank and file officers and, despite what those on the Government Benches might say, it is right that Cressida Dick should consider her position.
However, there has also been a failure of Government. For the past year, the Government have sustained legislation which prevents people from exercising their fundamental right to protest. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will vote against the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 when it comes back before the House, just as we did in September. Our rights matter and the right to protest matters, too. This is a Bill which, just when we should be considering how we dismantle restrictions on the right to protest in the name of public health, instead doubles down on them. The Home Secretary had strong words about the scenes on Saturday, but the reality is that this hastily pulled together legislation will make such scenes more common.  The challenge to some of those on the Government Benches who have claimed to be acting in the name of liberty over the last few months is this: will you oppose the Bill, or does liberty only matter to you when it is your liberty and not the liberty of those you disagree with?
Moving on, I want to use my brief time to speak to part 1 of the Bill and its measures concerning the police service. Enshrining the duty of the Home Secretary to produce a police covenant report in law is a very important step for police officers around the country. It is about recognising the realities of policing and the impact it can have on those who undertake those duties. As someone who comes from a policing family, I have seen that first-hand. My father, husband and I were all assaulted in the course of our duties. This year’s Armed Forces Bill legislates for a duty for public bodies to have due regard to the principles of that covenant. That is not something that this Bill is introducing for the police covenant and I would be grateful for further clarification on whether the Government might look to do similar in relation to the covenant in future.
There are other positive steps in the Bill, such as legislating to allow special constables to join the Police Federation. The work of special constables is vital, both as volunteers and in giving back to local communities. In carrying out frontline duties, they face the same dangers and experiences that appointed police officers face. I also support the introduction of road traffic fixed penalty notices in Scotland, as it is good to have UK-wide alignment.
Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposal to double the maximum sentence for assaulting emergency workers. Is an increased penalty for that actually going to reduce assaults on the police? Is somebody in the heat of the moment going to think, “I’m going to get two years for this, as opposed to 12 months?” I doubt that it will. Instead, I worry that there is a risk of getting into a competition, whereby assaulting someone in a particular role means a higher penalty. The fundamental aspect is policing by consent. If we create the right community culture, it should not matter what the penalty is, because the incidence of such crimes should reduce regardless. Our policies on crimes should not be dictated by what plays well to the gallery—they should be evidence-based.

Saqib Bhatti: I would like to start by paying tribute to Sarah Everard, and my thoughts are with her loved ones and her family. For too long we have seen women live in fear, and this Bill is one way in which we can start to make our streets and our society safer. It does feel, after last week, that there has been a renewed conversation about the safety of woman, and I hope that Sarah’s death has not been in vain.
This Bill, along with the Domestic Abuse Bill, ought to go a long way in making the world a safer place for women, but we must not be complacent and we must be resolute in this journey. On the latter Bill, I particularly welcome the amendment about threatening revenge porn, and I hope social media companies and other platforms will play their part in ensuring that revenge porn and non-consensual content are banned.
I must commend the Government for bringing forward this legislation and delivering on a manifesto commitment. As I talk to local residents across my constituency, there  is one thing in common that they expect. It is that our justice system should be made fair—fair to the victims of crime, fair to the local community and offering fair justice to offenders. In particular, I applaud the removal of the automatic halfway release. This Bill ensures that those who commit the most heinous of crimes will spend more time in prison, so that their victims do not feel short-changed. That is the right thing to do.
I welcome the focus on rehabilitation in this Bill, as in my view society should always be conscious of why we choose to imprison people in the way we do. I am a big believer in global Britain and our place in the world. It was Winston Churchill, the then Home Secretary, who said that a society’s attitude towards its prisoners, its “criminals”, is the measure of
“the stored-up strength of a nation”.—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1356.]
But this is also an act of common and economic sense. There is little point in ensuring that sentences are fully served at the taxpayer’s expense if, on release, a person is likely to reoffend. A jail sentence should not be a gateway to reoffending or graduating to a more serious crime. This conveyor belt to crime costs almost £18 billion to the taxpayer, which is why I am also pleased to see a greater emphasis on rehabilitation through greater support for the probation service and targeted measures such as curfews, community sentencing and better technology to ensure sustained rehabilitation.
Of course, prisons must serve their purpose for society in full—the delivery of justice must be fair, and it must be equitable—but we as legislators should not forget our duty in supporting offenders in turning their lives around. Once the victims of crime receive justice, to show compassion through rehabilitation speaks to our strength as a society—the very same strength that Winston Churchill once spoke of.

Jack Brereton: I pay tribute to Staffordshire police for their hard work and professionalism throughout covid. Local emergency services have given their all, often at high personal risk, particularly paramedics in responding to medical needs. I am truly grateful for their work, and their dedication brings us ever closer to a safe lifting of lockdown. Our policing is by consent, and I know that officers in Staffordshire hold this in great importance. In Stoke-on-Trent, officers have taken a measured approach based on the four Es—engage, explain, encourage and enforce. The comparatively low covid fines in Staffordshire demonstrate that enforcement is a last resort.
The images we saw over the weekend at Clapham common were disturbing for us all, and this should be thoroughly investigated, but I do not think it right to impede the progress of this important Bill. Our freedom-loving democratic values enshrine rights to peaceful protest, and this Bill does not curtail that. Many constituents have contacted me over the last year after seeing the wanton vandalism and obstruction of ambulances. This totally reckless behaviour of a minority demonstrates the need to update measures, such as putting static protests on the same footing as moving demonstrations. Emergency service workers frequently put themselves in harm’s way in protecting and saving lives of others, and  we must give them the protections they need, such as doubling maximum sentences for assaults. How could anyone not support these measures, given that they frequently put themselves at great risk to keep us safe?
I fully support the new police covenant, which ensures that serving and retired officers and their families are properly supported. I know my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent are extremely concerned about more serious criminals. Although crime is generally down, it is worrying that crimes committed in Stoke-on-Trent are becoming more serious. Especially concerning are the repeat offenders, and I welcome serious violence reduction orders to target persistent offenders. The Government’s safer streets initiative in Fenton is particularly important locally, improving household security so that people feel safe in their own homes.
No one should ever feel unsafe, not least women and children. It is totally unacceptable that any woman should be too scared of going out at night or should expect to be regularly harassed. I very much welcome the Home Secretary reopening the survey on tackling violence against women and girls. It is most worrying that Opposition Members do not support measures targeting the most serious offenders, including those committing serious violence and sexual offences. This Bill ends automatic early releases, keeping dangerous criminals off our streets. It also encourages stricter conditions on bail in high-harm cases and extends protections against sexual conduct by those in positions of authority. Figures of authority must not abuse positions of trust through such despicable behaviour. A lack of trusted positive role models often drives young people into gangs, drugs and violence because they believe that they will be somehow more secure. That cycle must be broken down in Stoke-on-Trent and across the country.

Sara Britcliffe: Can I first say, on using women as a reason to vote against the Bill, that I spoke about my own personal experiences last week? I remind those on the Opposition Benches that women and men are equal in law, so it all applies to women.
I want to raise the concerns of my constituents about the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It is important to make one thing clear: the Bill includes nothing that will threaten the genuine rights of people to engage in protests. What it does is address all those people who glue themselves to trains and buses, and block access to hospitals when somebody could need life-saving treatment. Those protests are not simply inconvenient; they make life intolerable for people living or working around them. This is about balancing the genuine and fundamental right that we shall have to protest. In short, the checks and balances remain firmly in place. I hope that the Minister in summing up will confirm that that is correct.
Like women and men up and down this country, my colleagues on the Government Benches believe in law and order and giving our police the tools that they have asked for—the right tools for the job. The Bill delivers on that pledge. I will briefly touch on some of its key points.
The Bill extends whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child and ends the automatic early release of dangerous criminals. It introduces life sentences for killer drivers—those who cause fatal accidents while  speeding and racing. It doubles the maximum sentence for assaulting emergency workers. It protects communities from illegal Traveller sites being set up. It introduces tougher community sentences, and it brings in Kay’s law to better protect victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences. It also ensures that those who desecrate our war memorials face the full force of law after what we witnessed with the Churchill monument and others last year.
I want to tackle those issues and bring in measures that protect my constituents and make our streets safer. That is why I will support the Bill’s Second Reading, to allow it to move to Committee where it will be fully scrutinised. It appals me that the Labour party will vote against a Bill that will bring tougher sentences and protect people such as my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden. That once again highlights why so many turned their backs on Labour as it continues to turn its back on the wants and needs of constituents such as mine. I will support the Bill, as I wholeheartedly believe that we should punish criminals.

Mark Fletcher: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe).
In the winter of 2019, through the wonderful weather we had—the snow and the rain—as I knocked on doors across Bolsover and in South Normanton and Clowne, there were three common refrains. The first was: get Brexit done. The second was the remarkable leadership of the Labour party under the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The third was crime and the sense of unfairness. There was a sense that those who do not live by the rules seemed to get away with it; they were not properly punished. The Bill is a tremendous step in the right direction, delivering on the manifesto commitments that we stood on and making sure that those who commit some of the worst crimes are properly punished.
I welcome the fact that we are enshrining the police covenant in law. It must be an absolutely monstrous time to be a police officer, trying to uphold the law in such difficult circumstances throughout the covid period. I have spoken regularly to police officers and the leadership in Derbyshire, and they have done a remarkable job. I am delighted that we have their backs and are enshrining the police covenant in law.
We are doubling the maximum sentence for assaults on emergency workers. Those who serve our communities with such distinction and such honour should not be the victims of assault full stop, but those who commit such crimes should be punished. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
We are introducing criminal penalties for unauthorised Traveller encampments—that will be welcomed across Derbyshire—and whole-life orders for premeditated murders of children. That is exactly what residents in Bolsover want to see.
We have not had a lot of cross-party love today, so I must confess, I am the co-chairman of the all-party group on wrestling along with my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). In her remarks, she mentioned that she welcomes the scope of offences in the Sexual Offences Act in relation to the abuse of positions of trust. We are particularly concerned about  this in the wrestling industry, and she and I have spent many hours discussing it. In her remarks, she asked for a meeting with the Minister on some of the specifics around that, and I echo that call.
This is a brilliant step in the right direction. It is the kind of legislation that the people in Bolsover voted for, and I look forward to supporting the Bill.

Elliot Colburn: I join the Home Secretary and colleagues in sending my condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. This Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment—the one that I stood on in Carshalton and Wallington, and so did many others—to toughen up sentences for the most dangerous criminals and reform the criminal justice system.
Of the many welcome measures contained in the Bill, I particularly welcome measures such as extending whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child and ending the early automatic release of dangerous criminals, which will keep the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes off our streets. I know, from the countless times that I have been told that the criminal justice system is too lenient, that my constituents will also welcome the tougher sentences for the most dangerous criminals, the introduction of life sentences for killer drivers, the doubling of the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker and the introduction of Kay’s law to better protect victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences. It is because of the campaigning efforts of those victims and their families that I will support the Bill.
Like me, many colleagues will have met and heard stories of grieving families from their own constituencies, angry at what they have seen as a lenient sentence. I remember reading one story just last year of a young man who tragically lost his life in Carshalton after being hit by a driver who was later arrested on suspicion of being drunk behind the wheel. This Bill will ensure that in cases such as this, the punishment fits the crime. Additionally, I know that residents across the London borough of Sutton will particularly welcome criminalising trespass and strengthening powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. Only recently, Carshalton and Wallington residents were incredibly frustrated when an encampment jumped from local park to local park, causing harm, disruption and distress as it went, yet progress on removing this encampment was incredibly slow because of the limitations around the existing law. These measures will make it much easier to deal with that.
This Bill does deliver on our manifesto commitment, so I am dismayed that Opposition Members are finding ways to try to oppose these important measures. The wording in the Bill is complemented by case law, and clearly defined principles are being put on to the statute book at the request of the independent Law Commission. The Bill is there to stop scenes like those we saw last year of protestors blocking ambulances, and not to ban peaceful protests, so it is no good Labour or Lib Dem Members saying that they agree with parts of the Bill if they are not going to support it. We should be unapologetic in standing up for victims of crime and their families, combined with the efforts that the Government are already making to put more police on our streets and work on prevention. For that reason, I will support the Bill tomorrow.

Miriam Cates: The first duty of any Government is to keep people safe. Although recent events have been shocking, we are fortunate to live in a country where citizens are overwhelmingly law-abiding, but as times change, crimes change, and it is important that we continue to update and amend legislation to make sure that our constituents not only are safe, but feel safe.
Any new criminal legislation should do four important things: it should discourage crime, improve detection and prosecution, make punishments effective and reduce the chances of reoffending. I welcome this Bill, as I believe that it will strengthen the law in all those areas. The Bill will certainly act to discourage crime, with the introduction of whole-life orders for child killers and new powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public. Potential offenders can be in no doubt that this Government are committed to making sure that serious crimes will be met with serious sentences. By increasing the efficiency of the courts, the Bill will also reduce delays and improve prosecution rates. I know from the experiences of my constituents this year—both those accused of crime and those who have been victims—how devastating delays to justice can be.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions to punish certain crimes, particularly serious driving offences and assaults on our brave police and emergency workers, more robustly. I also believe that the Bill will be effective in reducing the chances of reoffending, with more community orders ensuring that offenders do not lose jobs and family relationships as a result of their punishments, making it more likely that they can rebuild their lives without resorting to further criminal behaviour. However, for some offenders who have served their time, returning to their community and their previous relationships can be a factor that actually increases their chance of reoffending. For those people, escaping that context and getting a fresh start can offer them the best chance of building a crime-free life.
Northern College in my constituency, one of only four residential adult education colleges, specialises in giving vulnerable adults, including those who have served prison sentences, a second chance at education. Set in the stunning and inspiring grounds of Wentworth castle, it offers students high-quality teaching alongside counselling and support. In such a positive and focused environment, the outcomes are incredible, with students achieving GCSEs, A-levels and even higher education qualifications, and going on to gain good jobs and live fulfilling lives.
For many ex-offenders, full rehabilitation requires a second chance at education, which so many of us take for granted, so I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to meet me to discuss the role that Northern College could play. This is an excellent Bill that meets many of our manifesto commitments, and it has my full support.

Stephen Hammond: This is an extremely wide-ranging Bill. I have raised in the House a number of times the reform of rehabilitation. This Bill will give the courts powers to give alternatives to custody for youth offenders, by piloting changes to youth rehabilitation orders. For adult offenders, a “problem-solving court approach” will be piloted for  certain community and suspended sentences. This aims to ensure that there is more tailored, intensive and structured support to rehabilitate offenders in the community. Employment opportunities for reformed offenders will also be improved by the Bill.
The Bill outlines several measures that will allow the courts to return to normal as soon as possible and cut into the backlog. Virtual juries were trialled with huge success on four occasions last year by the international fair trials organisation Justice, most notably in Wimbledon. “Wimbledon juries”, as they should perhaps become known, were subject to research and authentication by the University of Oxford, and the trials proved that they were, in many ways, as effective in executing their responsibilities as juries in courtrooms. They can be inexpensive and can return juries to their historic origins, based in communities.
The Bill also makes changes to police powers over protests. I have been looking carefully at those parts of the Bill, and I know that they will be examined in greater detail in Committee. However, it is clear, especially with the background of current covid legislation, that those who enforce this legislation need to be clear as to its framework.
The language of clause 59(2) is central. The language of “distress” and “loss of amenity” is familiar to the courts, but “serious annoyance” and “serious inconvenience” are unfamiliar to the courts. I know that “annoyance” has been used in public order Acts in Ireland, I think in Austria and perhaps elsewhere, but I would welcome a very clear definition here. We need to help our police decide what these words mean, and we need to let those that they will cover know what they mean. Similarly, “noise” from a protest that could
“result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”
needs to be more clearly defined so that it does not catch the sort of chanting that one would normally expect at a protest.
Finally, I welcome that the Home Secretary has instructed Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to investigate the policing at the Clapham vigil. I welcome confirmation from her that there are aspects to be investigated and that she intends the extended consultation to ensure that the justice system provides confidence for the victims. Therefore, one should look at this Bill in the whole and it should be supported.

Rob Butler: I welcome this Bill, which fulfils manifesto promises on which I was elected and demonstrates this Government’s firm commitment to law and order. I declare relevant interests: prior to my election, I spent 12 years as a magistrate, and was a board member of the Youth Justice Board, a member of the Sentencing Council and a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.
There are undoubtedly offenders who pose a clear and present danger, and they must remain in prison for as long as it takes for them to cease being a threat to the public. I therefore welcome moves to lengthen custodial sentences for certain very serious offences and to extend the time that must be served before automatic release applies. This also represents an important step towards increased public confidence in sentencing, which is not always as transparent as it might be.
I want to see fewer victims of crime. Key to achieving that is cutting reoffending, which accounts for some 80% of offences at the moment. Prison is not always the best place to achieve the greatest prospect of rehabilitation, so I am glad to see pilots of problem solving courts, and I hope they will be especially targeted at young adults. I am pleased that community orders will be made more robust, not least by extending the maximum curfew hours to 20 a day. I believe that home detention is a tool we should increasingly look to, as technology continues to develop at a pace that can provide many of the reassurances on security and monitoring behaviour that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.
There are welcome changes to the youth justice system here; reducing the use of remand in custody for children is the right thing to do. I am pleased to see changes to the intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, and I support the proposals to make detention and training orders more flexible. The Bill eliminates many anomalies in previous legislation, and I would welcome the Government giving further consideration to one anomaly that I highlighted in my recent ten-minute rule Bill: that children who commit an offence as a child but turn 18 before getting to court are treated as adults at both trial and sentence. The risk of this happening has been exacerbated by delays caused by covid, and those delays vary greatly between different parts of the country, resulting in a postcode lottery that is fundamentally unjust and yet can have lifelong consequences. Although there has not been time to incorporate my proposal into the Bill at this stage, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for meeting me to discuss how, with appropriate safeguards, some of its aims might be achieved. I hope that the Government might still be persuaded that this Bill provides such an opportunity. I am confident that that could be achieved without conflicting with other very important proposals in this Bill.
Three minutes is a short time in which to discuss a Bill of 300 pages. Of course, I do not claim to have addressed element of it in my remarks, nor do I claim that the Bill is perfect in every way, but I firmly believe it represents a step change to tackle crime more effectively and so make the British public safer.

Tom Randall: May I, first, associate myself with the sympathy expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to Sarah Everard’s family at the outset of this debate? When this Bill comes to a vote tomorrow I will be supporting it. I will be supporting a Bill that will ensure stronger sentences for child murderers, rapists, violent offenders, dangerous drivers, child abusers, burglars, drug dealers, knife carriers and those who desecrate our memorials. The Labour party will be voting against those stronger sentences. Labour, having previously said that the legislation does not go far enough, will now vote against all of that, in an astonishing U-turn. It will also be voting against increased sentences for those who assault our emergency service workers.
This is a wide-ranging piece of legislation that will, quite reasonably, update public order legislation that is now 35 years old. In the short time in which I have to speak this evening, I am unable to cover the breadth of this Bill, but I will pick out a couple of points. I am pleased to see that the police covenant is to be enshrined  in law, strengthening support for serving and retired officers. I know that unauthorised encampments can cause a great deal of stress and inconvenience, as I saw in my constituency, in Colwick, a little while ago, as well as disruption and damage. The power to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who attempt to reside on private and public land without permission will, no doubt, be reassuring.
It is also important to state that the Bill will not stop the right to protest. The right to demonstrate is a hard-fought one, and it will continue. A number of constituents have written to me regarding clause 59, but it is important to note that this is a component of the existing common law offence of causing a public nuisance, which is being put on to a statutory footing following recommendations by the Law Commission in its 2016 report on the simplification of criminal law. All in all, this is a Bill that makes good on several commitments made in the manifesto on which I stood for election in 2019. I am pleased to support it and I look forward to its passage in the House.

Fiona Bruce: Freedom of assembly and of expression are fundamental rights that are hard-fought and hard-won but easily lost or damaged if we legislate in haste. I want to focus on clauses 54 to 56 and 59 to 60, which would make significant changes to police powers to respond to protest. They would, for example, significantly lower the legal test for the police to issue conditions on protest. The term “serious unease” is a significant departure, reducing the test for the threshold of harm so as to potentially capture peaceful protest that a claimant considers objectionable.
Clause 54 would give the Secretary of State powers to further define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”,
which could significantly curtail the activities of peaceful pro-life vigils outside abortion centres. Organisations such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and MSI complain of harassment or intimidation, but this is rarely, if ever, supported by evidence. The test of “serious disruption” could remove the objectivity normally required for criminal prosecution and place the emphasis instead on the perception of an organisation. This has potentially far-reaching implications for the fundamental rights of those with non-mainstream views to assemble and express their views, and it is incumbent on this House to defend those rights, however much we approve or disapprove of such views.
Clause 59, by abolishing the common law offence of public nuisance and replacing it with a new statutory offence of
“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,
needs to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that there are clear definitions of terms such as “serious annoyance”, “serious inconvenience” and rights common to the public. The word “impact” in relation to static protests is ill defined and too open to interpretation, and on-the-spot assessments could increase unjustifiable interference with fundamental rights.
Concerningly, removing intentionality from the offence of failing to comply with a condition issued by the police on a protest means that the police will be able to enforce the law based on their subjective interpretation  of what the alleged offender should have known. Allowing the police to issue conditions on one-person protests, rather than the current two, potentially brings into scope street preachers, but it should be recalled that prosecutions against street preachers have invariably failed due to falling foul of freedom of speech rights. Without amendment, the Bill could increase police apprehension of otherwise lawful speech and could have a profoundly chilling effect on free speech more widely. I hope that the Committee and the other place will have sufficient time to carefully scrutinise this significant Bill.

Antony Higginbotham: I will have no hesitation in supporting the Bill when it comes to a vote tomorrow, because it delivers on so many of the manifesto promises I made to residents across Burnley and Padiham. It starts by toughening up the sentences for drink and drug drivers who kill while under the influence, for criminals who assault our emergency service workers and for those in positions of trust who groom children for exploitation. It does all this while also tackling unauthorised Traveller camps that show no regard for local residents and planning systems, and so much more. What’s not to like in this Bill?
There is so much in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a small number of areas. The first is the desecration of war memorials. I have been incredibly disappointed to hear Labour MPs indicate that this provision does not matter, because it does. We have some fantastic memorials in Burnley, not least the cenotaph in Towneley Park and the memorials to so many others in our villages such as Hopton and Worsthorne. The images that we saw last year of our national cenotaph being targeted caused hurt, upset and anger. That is why this matters. I am really pleased that the Government have recognised the strength of feeling on this and introduced tougher sentences as a result.
The Bill also delivers on our promise to bring in a smarter, more credible sentencing system. It is one that deals with the most serious violent offenders by ending the automatic release at the halfway point, that tackles repeat offenders that blight our communities, and that makes youth rehabilitation orders more effective at reducing youth offending.
I spent some time before coming to this place mentoring young offenders when they were in prison, and I have no doubt that this will make a difference. I have, however, received emails from concerned constituents about the protest provisions in the Bill. Let us be clear: nothing in the Bill alters a person’s fundamental right to protest and make their voice heard. However, the right to protest does not give anyone the right to block an ambulance going to a hospital; it does not give anyone the right to stop someone going to work to earn a living; and it does not bring with it the right for a person to stop a newspaper being printed just because they disagree with the contents. Just as important as the right to protest is the right to a free press, the right to life, and the right to employment. The Bill just gives equal weight to all those competing rights. The Bill puts the right of the law-abiding majority first. It protects victims, it backs our police and emergency service workers and, with that in mind, it should command cross-party support tomorrow evening.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Many constituents have shared their frustrations with me over the issue of illegal encampments. Although many Travellers are law-abiding citizens, illegal sites can cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. They also play havoc with local sports clubs and businesses and the Bill will put a stop to that. I am pleased that these measures are proportionate and that we have taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted.
Some people are claiming that the Bill will somehow stop people’s right to protest, and that is simply not true. What makes it worse is that some are trying to link it with temporary covid restrictions, which is a completely separate issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent events, it is abhorrent and totally wrong for groups to try to use a tragic incident as a smokescreen to oppose legislation that they do not like. This legislation means tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and those attacking emergency service workers. By campaigning against this Bill, they are also campaigning against these measures.
The Bill is also designed to stop the behaviour of extremist groups such as Extinction Rebellion or BLM causing serious disruption by stopping trains running or by gluing themselves to buses. Serious disruption is a well-established and defined concept. The changes bring static protests in line with equivalent provisions that apply to marches or processions under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. For example, a protest does not cause serious disruption just because it may distract employees in a nearby office, and nor would a peaceful vigil in a park cause serious disruption.
Examples of things that could cause serious disruption might include blocking a bridge or a road to stop pedestrians or traffic getting through. We saw that happen when Extinction Rebellion decided to block Westminster Bridge. While these people were dancing and having fun, ambulances needed to be diverted and cancer patients had to walk to hospital instead. Another example of serious disruption might also include preventing a train from leaving a station. What sort of organisation claims that it wants to stop climate change and then prevents people from using public transport? People from those organisations do not understand the value of a proper day’s work.
People physically preventing a printing press from operating because they disagree with the editorial position of that publication is another example of serious disruption. These people talk of freedoms yet attack freedom of speech and the freedom of our press, including titles such as The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the London Standard. This is not just an attack on them, but on all our media.
Our freedoms are precious and we must do everything we can to ensure that freedom is enjoyed by all and not hijacked by these groups. This Bill, using sensible, fair and proportionate measures, will set us on a course to do just that.

Richard Drax: Please may I too send my deepest sympathies to Sarah Everard’s family and friends? Also, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to commend in this Bill, which dots several i’s and crosses several t’s with regard to our manifesto. We hear a lot about rights; now it is time for responsibilities.
Following the unhappy circumstances surrounding the vigil for Sarah Everard, there is concern over the extension of police powers, and the new laws regarding public order must be scrupulously monitored and sparingly used. I mention this with the vigil in mind, where the police were caught between a rock and a hard place as they attempted to balance laws passed to control a pandemic and an outpouring of grief that those who attended the vigil wanted to share. It highlighted to me what happens when the police lose the consent of the people, which only reinforces how important it is for laws affecting public order to be proportionate, clear and reasonable. To that extent, I was reassured when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in her speech that these new powers are aimed at preventing protesters from stopping people going to work or closing a city like London for days on end. This new style of protest appears to be the norm today, and no responsible Government can sit idly by.
Let me move on to other aspects of the Bill. I am 100% in support of doubling the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years in prison. I sincerely hope that this deterrent also applies to inmates who assault prison officers. For too long, a lack of any real deterrent has seen this forgotten army subjected to acts of violence that are totally unacceptable—and it is not just physical violence. Female prison officers, in particular, are vulnerable to being “potted”—a degrading and revolting assault where human excrement is emptied on their heads.
As a former soldier, I find the damage to and desecration of war memorials a particularly heinous and cowardly crime. Whatever one’s view on a particular subject, it does not give the right to tear down statues. I agree that monetary value should not be a factor in sentencing because these memorials are, quite literally, priceless.
I welcome the toughening of the law on trespass. Rural crime is a significant problem, and this promise in our manifesto will help to combat a small and unruly element who think they can operate outside the law.
Finally, I like the idea of secure schools as an alternative to jail for troubled young people—at least, I assume that is the aim. Their success will depend to a large extent on who runs them and how they are operated. I recall the attempt to introduce bootcamps, which fell at the first fence. However, there is no doubt that a period of discipline within a well-organised structure would do no harm.
Tomorrow night I shall be voting for the Bill, which will be welcomed by the law-abiding silent majority.

Suzanne Webb: It is a pleasure to be back here physically to speak.
A Government’s first duty is always to protect their people, and this flagship Bill will ensure that our justice system will always serve the law-abiding majority. It is timely after recent events as it emphasises that this Government put women’s safety front and centre. The Bill lengthens jail time for serious sexual offenders and  prevents their early release. It keeps those most horrific individuals who rape or sexually assault children in jail for longer too.
We should consider this Bill in the context of the second major piece of legislation that will protect women—the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, which introduces new provisions to ban the rough sex defence and extends the law against revenge pornography, as well as creating the specific new offence of non-fatal strangulation. This is flagship policy making. I am proud of a Government who since 2010 have put women’s safety at the heart of their policy making.
The way to test any Bill passed by Government is on whether it changes things for the better for people. This Bill will do just that. It delivers important manifesto commitments, including ensuring that serious violent and sexual offenders spend more of their sentence in prison, increasing to life the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, increasing sentences for desecrating a war memorial, doubling the sentence for assaulting an emergency worker, and enabling prisoners who become dangerous to spend all their sentence in prison. It also makes sure that more repeat knife offenders and burglars serve the specified minimum jail term. Every stabbing creates a trail of misery, and often devastated families when it ends a life, as in the case of my constituent Ryan Passey.
I welcome the strengthening of police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. That will be particularly welcome for my residents in Withymoor Village in Amblecote. I fully recognise that everyone has the right to a nomadic life, but this must be balanced against the rights of local communities. For me, the balance has never been quite right, and we needed greater police powers. The Bill delivers just that, for which I thank the Government enormously. It will change things for the better for my constituents. Police will now have the powers to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who intend to reside on private and public land without permission. Yet Opposition Members attack plans for criminal penalties for those who refuse to leave unauthorised encampments as discriminatory and unworkable. Once again, they show themselves to be on the side of those who break the law rather than the law-abiding.
With this new Bill, we will have more tools at our disposal than ever before to protect our residents. I support it for all that it delivers. It will make my community in Stourbridge safer. After listening to this debate, my concern is that those who vote against the vital measures in the Bill will be putting a day’s headline or strapline ahead of the safety of my constituents, particularly that of women.

Bob Stewart: Since 2009, the armed forces’ next of kin have been given the Elizabeth Cross if a family member has been killed in action as a result of terrorism. The award is obviously named after Her Majesty the Queen. I believe that such an award should now also be made to the police, fire officers and members of the ambulance service. I suppose that it would be appropriate to link them all together as blue-light services.
The national police memorial on the Mall lists almost 5,000 police officers who have been killed while on duty since records began. Most recently, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, 319 Royal Ulster Constabulary  officers were killed; and since 2001, 16 Police Service of Northern Ireland officers have been murdered. Since 2010, 11 Metropolitan police officers have also been killed here in London. It is difficult to get consolidated lists of firefighters who have been killed doing their duty, but at least 69 died between 1986 and 2017. Ambulance personnel who have died in the line of duty have normally been hit by vehicles when attending casualties, and figures are difficult to get—yet it happens.
Maybe, with the approval of the Queen, we might be able to call this award the “Charles Cross”. After all, His Royal Highness Prince Charles is patron of the National Police Memorial Day. Frankly, I believe it would be a thoroughly appropriate name for such an award. I suppose the scheme might be expanded to include the air ambulance and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which are really part of the blue-light fraternity of emergency services. I suggest that the award should go no further than that. I believe such an award to be utterly proper and decent, and it may indeed give close family members of those who have lost their lives protecting the rest of us some solace and perhaps not a little pride when they wear such a decoration.

Richard Fuller: I prepared a one-minute speech, but I will try to stretch it to two minutes. The constituents of North East Bedfordshire will welcome this Bill. They will particularly welcome the fact that it begins with the police covenant, which codifies our responsibility to recognise the obligations and sacrifices of our police officers. They will very much welcome the end of automatic early release, but I must say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): he should see this as the start, not the end, of ending automatic release, so that the public understand that sentences mean what they say.
My constituents will particularly welcome the actions on illegal encampments, which are a blight for so many in the countryside and urban areas. On the issue of policing demonstrations, let us listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said and take more responsibility for ourselves in setting the laws, rather than the obligations of the police for policing them. I welcome the sensitivity in the Bill in terms of the interactions of young people with our justice system. If we can get that right, it will preclude many faults later on.
It is welcome that we have clause 164, which at last recognises that deaf people can have access to British Sign Language interpreters. For hundreds of years, we have recognised that every citizen in this country is entitled to a jury of their peers, and now those juries  can include our deaf citizens as well as everybody else. Finally, I believe, in all generosity, that Labour Members have made a terrible mistake in opposing the Bill, and neither my constituents nor theirs will ever understand the reasons why.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned—(Michael Tomlinson.).
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Royal Assent

Nigel Evans: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021
Contingencies Fund Act 2021.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Immigration)

That the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Equality

That the draft Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Insolvency

That the draft Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Change of Expiry Date) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Nigel Evans: We will now suspend for two minutes.
Sitting suspended.

UK Renewables: Critical Minerals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Alexander Stafford: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, I am delighted to have secured this debate on the use of critical minerals in the UK’s renewables future. As was the case with my two hydrogen Adjournment debates, I am pleased to announce that this is the first debate in the UK Parliament dedicated to critical minerals.
Critical minerals have long been overlooked by successive Governments and by this House—the mantra of “out of sight, out of mind” is apt. Awareness of where our critical minerals come from and what they are used for is low, however. The Government are waking up to the fact that the race for critical minerals security is the new great game. Urgent action must be taken now to safeguard the future prosperity of the United Kingdom and the west in the spheres of the economy, defence and energy. With the upcoming COP26 in Glasgow and the G7 summit in Cornwall, there could not be a better time to do so.
It is vital that this House is made aware of the significant threat to our economy and our post-covid and post-Brexit recovery if we run out of the critical minerals needed to supply our low-carbon industries of the future. The UK’s 10-point economic plan makes an assumption that the international supply of these minerals is sufficient to service every country’s needs in our global race to avoid climate change. I would like to inform the House that that is clearly not the case.
What are critical minerals and what are they used for? In simple terms, these are the minerals that are vital for low-carbon industrial capabilities, but which face supply chain vulnerability. The Critical Minerals Association has split the definition of critical minerals into three subsections: critical minerals, which are important for industrial strategy and consist of minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earths; technology metals, which are bulk metals such as copper that are not susceptible to supply chain vulnerability, but are important nevertheless for the UK’s industrial objectives; and strategic minerals, which have potential defence importance. Those three groups of critical minerals are ubiquitous in their use, and that is part of the problem.
In fact, critical minerals are becoming more and more important by the day. Our renewables and telecommunications technology of the future requires an ever-increasing amount of critical minerals. Without them, our society just cannot function. With global demand at this scale, shortages present a real threat to our economy and to our society. In the past five years, we have seen the mass commercialisation of satellite and drone technology, led by British companies such as Blue Bear Systems, all of which rely on critical minerals. Likewise, advanced robotics for British manufacturing, which is crucial to my seat of Rother Valley in South Yorkshire and places across our country, require more than 40 different critical minerals.
It is incredibly important that British industry thrives in the post-Brexit and post-covid era. For that to happen, factories and plants in the Rother Valley region must  stay at the cutting edge of their sector, with the best equipment and secure, efficient supply chains, thus staying competitive and retaining their reputation for the highest-quality products.
The most visible everyday examples of the importance of critical minerals are mobile phones and electric cars. Our ultra-modern smartphones, boasting touchscreens, cameras and 5G, use a huge number of critical minerals, including potassium, tin, copper, tungsten and advanced aluminium. Electric vehicles are often hailed as the future of renewable transport, but they are key users of critical minerals. Each car on average uses 100 kg of copper, rare earth for the magnets and lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite for the batteries. Many people are surprised to learn that a solar panel relies on 16 different minerals and metals.
An equally important part of the UK’s renewables future is the wind turbine, with the Prime Minister boldly envisioning that we shall become the
“Saudi Arabia of wind power”.
I share his enthusiasm for the role that wind can play in powering the UK and in reducing our carbon emissions, but to meet the Prime Minister’s objective of having every home in the UK powered by wind turbines by 2030, experts indicate that we will need to increase our output of energy from 10 GW to 40 GW by 2030. That will require building a new wind turbine every single day until 2030. To achieve that, we need more than 26,000 tonnes of rare earths and more than 4 tonnes of copper. The UK Government must acknowledge that the construction of renewable energy technology is inextricably linked to the supply of critical minerals. We must take action accordingly to protect our energy sector and the generation of power.
Importantly, seven points in the Government’s 10-point plan for the green recovery are dependent on a secure green supply of critical minerals. Herein lies the challenge for the United Kingdom. We are facing a two-pronged threat. The first threat is that as demand rockets for the use of critical minerals in the technology of the future, there is a global shortage, which would affect our economy and livelihoods, our energy supply, our environmental agenda, our security and defence, and basically the way we live our lives.
The second threat is that our current suppliers of critical minerals are not dependable or sustainable. I shall name two countries in our critical minerals supply chain in order to demonstrate that fact. The first is involved in the mining of critical minerals, and the second in the midstream processing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a dependable source of minerals for the UK to rely on. It is politically unstable, and Chinese influence is concerningly strong in mining areas. It is not a sustainable source of minerals either, with the DRC home to low environmental standards and frequent human rights violations against local people and children. In fact, there is currently a class action lawsuit against the big technology companies, including Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla, which stand accused of operating supply chains that use cobalt mined by children.
The second country in our critical minerals supply chain is the People’s Republic of China, and it is in the midstream, where the communist PRC dominates, that we   face our greatest threat. Clearly, we are totally dependent on China’s good will, from processing and refining to beneficiation. For instance, China mines only 1% of the world’s cobalt, but refines 65% of it. It mines 12% of the world’s manganese but refines 97% of it, as well 89% of the world’s graphite. China’s absolute control of the critical mineral midstream is so strong that graphite from the UK is sent to China for beneficiation, and then bought back from China at the component section of the supply chain. That is absurd. Of the 172 gigafactories being built in the world at this moment, 130 are in China.
It is estimated that by 2030 the world’s demand for lithium will mean that global production is 1.4 million tonnes a year in deficit. Graphite will be 8 million tonnes in deficit, cobalt 800,000 tonnes in deficit, and nickel 400,000 tonnes in deficit. If China controls the midstream of those minerals, and is building over three times more gigafactories than the rest of the world put together, it is only logical that China will serve its industrial requirements before the rest of the world, and before the United Kingdom.

Jerome Mayhew: We talk about industrial strategy, but would my hon. Friend enlighten the House about his views on whether this is also a national security threat?

Alexander Stafford: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and of course it is a national security issue. This is one of the biggest national security issues facing us over the next 10 years or so, and we need to have control of it.
Let me give more examples of why this is such an important matter. More than 75% of the world’s lithium-ion component manufacturers are located in China, resulting in more than 72% of lithium-ion batteries, and 45% of all global electric vehicles, already being produced in China. In December 2020—only a few months ago—the Chinese legislature passed a law on export control, allowing the Government to ban exports of strategic materials and advanced technology to specific foreign companies. A Chinese Government spokesman said:
“China may take countermeasures against any country or region that abuses export-control measures and poses a threat to China’s national security and interests”.
This year alone, China has openly discussed the potential of cutting off the supply of rare earths or rare-earth components to the United States. Those are necessary for the US defence sector and, to put that into context, more than 400 kg of rare earths are needed for a single F-35 fighter.
Let me return to the example I often cite, which is the coronavirus pandemic. Last year, the UK imported most of its personal protective equipment from China, with only 1% of it made in the UK. When we needed it most, however, at the height of the pandemic, China decided to not fulfil its obligations, by sending us defective PPE, or by not even sending it to us at all. We now manufacture 70% of PPE domestically. It is a similar situation with critical minerals. When we take that together with China’s actions over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and its treatment of the Uyghurs, it is clear that we cannot, and should not, depend on the PRC for the future of our economy, energy, and defence sectors.
For the economy, the consequences of such supply chain instability for the United Kingdom are stark. Let me take the automotive sector as an example of the consequences. Some 70% of the value of an electric car is realised in its battery and motor. If those components cannot be manufactured in the UK because we do not have the minerals coming into the country, the consequences for the automotive sector alone are bleak: it could cost up to 500,000 jobs by 2030. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government must take immediate and assertive action to avert this potential disaster, which may strike just as we set out our post-covid-19 recovery.
The Government must adopt a two-fold approach, the first arm of which is to focus on relocating as much of the critical minerals supply chain as we can to the UK, thereby boosting the UK economy and creating jobs and opportunities. The second arm is to take a leading role in creating a Five Eyes critical minerals alliance to co-ordinate an overarching strategy to secure a stable network of interdependence.
On building a critical minerals industry in the UK, we already have some world-leading companies and research institutions in the sector, doing vital work. Of course, Britain has long been a pioneer in industrial innovation. If we look through history, we see that we have been at the forefront of industrial revolutions and part of revolutions in power supply, from early agrarian methods to steam to oil. What differentiates today’s power revolution is that we are not only looking for more powerful or cheaper sources of energy but developing renewable energy sources that meet our social objective of being less damaging to the environment. It is inescapable that critical minerals are the building blocks of this new economy, and the renewable energy sector will need them. The reality is that our future economy and green energy desires rely on a steady, secure and vertically integrated supply of critical minerals for the UK.
The UK has a particularly long history of mining stretching over 2,000 years and more. Everyone in Britain is only too aware of the legend that Jesus himself visited our green and pleasant land more than two millennia ago precisely because of our mining heritage—his relative Joseph of Arimathea was a tin trader—as memorialised in the song “Jerusalem”. Our bulk mining capacity has been depleted because of decreased ore grades, but we are now seeing a growth in domestic critical mineral potential. Although this will never meet our entire critical mineral needs, the shortening of supply chains and production of feedstock domestically is the first step towards reducing vulnerability and tapping into the £7 billion-per-year industry.
We know of UK critical minerals deposits in the south-west of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Cornish lithium is key to UK critical mineral potential, securing battery-grade lithium from geothermal brine. Elsewhere in the region, Tungsten West is reopening a globally significant tungsten deposit in Devon and Cornwall, and Cornish Metals has the potential to supply industrial levels of tin for the British economy. Not only are such projects significant to our industrial objectives, but they provide an alternative year-round economy to Cornwall and the south-west, where the community has rich mining heritage. In Northern Ireland, Dalradian Gold has the potential to deliver significant copper for the  UK economy. Such companies require support to unlock the potential in our regions and secure critical minerals sourced from home.
Domestic mining is just one small part of the greater picture. It is important to note that no one expects us to repatriate all upstream mining to Britain—quite simply, we do not have the geology to support that. It is key that we relocate to the UK other steps in the supply chain, particularly in the midstream. Crucially, by shortening our supply chain we can reduce our embedded carbon footprint, which is vital to the delivery of our green economy and to meeting our net zero target. The domestication of the critical mineral stream and investment in the circular economy is crucial. We are lucky to have in the sector leading British companies such as the Materials Processing Institute, Less Common Metals, TechMet and Technical Critical Minerals.
Let me turn to the second arm of the two-fold approach that I urge the Government to adopt. It is evident that the act of mining is determined by the geology in a nation. If we are to meet the UK’s industrial needs, we will need to secure sufficient critical minerals from other countries. It so happens that our Five Eyes partners are blessed with critical minerals in abundance, as are our Commonwealth friends.
I am a firm believer that the UK is a force of good in the world. In stable partner nations such as Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia the multiplier effect of a responsibly-run mine is somewhere between 10 and 25. In respect of Five Eyes, collaboration is vital for the mutual benefit of us all. We largely share the same economic and security objectives and we face the same global threats. Closer collaboration with our partner nations, especially Australia and Canada, will be vital to our upstream overseas critical mineral supply chain. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, it was an honour to host the Australian high commissioner this morning to hear about Australia’s recently launched critical mineral strategy and how Australia seeks greater co-operation with the UK in this vital sector.
The high commissioner reiterated that neither country will get to net zero by 2050 through the development and deployment of low-emission technologies without a secure supply chain of critical minerals. His Excellency confirmed that the UK is at the front of the queue for critical minerals co-operation due to our shared environmental and ethical standards and commitment to a market that is diverse, robust, secure, and underpinned by good governance and environmental, social and corporate governance practice, driven by innovation, free market forces and co-operation.
Together, we can diversify the supply chain and complement each other to protect our economies and societies. However, we must secure a UK-Australia free trade agreement. I am pleased that we are already working to establish a working group on critical minerals with Australia. I urge my colleagues to study closely Australia’s critical minerals strategy as it is very much what we should doing in the UK, and the creation of a critical minerals facilitation office should be explored too.
The UK has an opportunity to take the lead on developing an overarching Five Eyes strategy that will safeguard our prosperity and security for decades to come. It is quite possible that we can work with our  mining counterparts to host the midstream and downstream parts of the supply chain, creating a supply chain balance across the Five Eyes alliance. Quotas, too, are particularly important in ensuring that our respective needs are met and that we do not face any shortages. One territory that Five Eyes must pay particular attention to is Greenland. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland, I welcome the timely publication of the Greenland critical minerals report, which outlines the crucial role the UK has to play in leading the Five Eyes critical minerals alliance, and I urge the Government to enter into an enhanced partnership with Greenland for critical minerals and to prioritise a bilateral UK-Greenland trade agreement.
I now turn to the benefits of adopting my new strategy on critical minerals for the whole United Kingdom. We are at a crossroads, looking to a future dominated by the green renewables transition and the levelling up agenda. We have left the European Union and we are looking to turbocharge the economy post covid, as well as hosting the G7 and COP26 this year. The building of a critical minerals supply chain will spread huge opportunity to every corner of our country.
I have already spoken about the critical mineral potential of left-behind areas. I know from my own work on locating a hydrogen hub in my constituency of Rother Valley that the domino effect of such supply chains in a region is transformative. For example, Sheffield’s hydrogen giga-factory could be used as part of the electric vehicles and critical minerals supply chain, creating efficiencies and synergies between our burgeoning hydrogen economy and our critical minerals economy. That will not only safeguard existing jobs but create thousands more  jobs, providing well-paid employment in the region for generations to come and injecting much needed investment into our high streets in industrial towns such as Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft and Swallownest.
As more companies and educational institutions are attracted by that industrial cluster of critical minerals, steelmaking and hydrogen plants, prosperity is sure to follow. Repatriating the critical minerals supply chain is a vital part of our levelling up agenda, upskilling the local population and supporting our green programme. The more steps in the chain located in the UK, the more we control environmental standards, labour standards and ESG matters.
A circular economy underpinned by the expansion of industries such as recycling, repair and remanufacturing could also create over half a million jobs across the UK. Most of these would be in remanufacturing and most would not be in London or the south-east. It would be particularly important to give a second life to machinery that will enable a low-carbon future.
We are, of course, in a race for these manifold benefits. Our industrial objectives are the same as those of Europe and their companies are looking for the same critical minerals we are. The threat is that we will not secure the supply chain as the EU and other nations advance their strategies before we can. Companies looking to take advantage of the new industrial revolution are thinking regionally to maximise profits against the relatively high capital expenditure needed to start these businesses. As such, we find ourselves in a race against friends to secure a supply chain of critical minerals and secure the domestication of component manufacturers to deliver the industrial objectives.
The Minister will not be surprised that I have some policy asks of the Government. The first is to support the development of potential critical minerals by supporting upstream mining capability throughout the UK. The second is the development of a critical mineral midstream. The global supply chain bottleneck is at the midstream section. When the rest of the world focused on bulk mining, China looked to the future of the industry and cornered the market for the minerals we need now. It is a monopolised sector and therefore free market forces do not work. As a Government, we must find innovative ways to fund the right projects to ensure we overcome this global bottleneck. Our regional competitor for critical minerals, the EU, has already started a finance programme looking to raise £16 billion off the back of an institutional £6 billion investment. Unless we find a way to compete, companies will be attracted to where the investment exists.
The third ask is that we work with our international partners to produce a Five Eyes critical minerals strategy. I strongly believe that working with our cousins in Australia and Canada is the key to building that.
The fourth request is that the Government support university programmes, such as the Camborne School of Mines, to make sure that they look at critical minerals. The final ask is that the Government release a critical minerals strategy at the earliest opportunity, to give investors and industry certainty and to allow Members of this House to scrutinise the economic, environmental and societal benefits.
I believe firmly in our 10-point plan for a green recovery and our net zero target, and I am a staunch supporter of the levelling up agenda. The UK has all the necessary skills and talent to be a world leader in the sector, working with our Five Eyes and Commonwealth friends. We just need the Government’s support, direction, and investment to unleash this potential, creating opportunity across Britain, boosting our green economy, and protecting our energy and defence interests. The critical minerals great game has begun. With the Government behind us, I know that the UK will be the winner.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this truly important debate. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for their written questions on the subject, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for his contributions.
The Government are proud of their commitment to net zero, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is right to link it to the question of sourcing raw materials. Indeed, critical raw materials have supported our success so far. The UK’s world-leading offshore wind industry, which uses light rare earth metals, niobium and borates, as well as the more common cobalt, in turbine manufacture, provides a critical source of our renewable energy for our growing economy. The latest figures indicate that our onshore wind assets now generate enough power for more than 10 million UK homes. In solar, which relies on silicon, indium, germanium and gallium for its panels and turbines, we also see a UK success story. More than 99% of UK solar capacity has been deployed since May 2010.
Clearly, such materials underpin the renewable technologies we need to achieve our net zero goals. That is why we are looking at how we can leverage the UK’s extensive R&D ecosystem to lead efforts to deliver the green industrial revolution and maximise sustainable and efficient use of critical materials. Our investment in two new interdisciplinary circular economy centres—UK Research and Innovation’s interdisciplinary circular economy centres for technology metals and for circular metals—is helping to explore how reusing waste materials can deliver environmental benefits and boost the UK economy.
We have also committed £500 million of funding for the automotive transformation fund to build an internationally competitive electric vehicle supply chain, and £318 million for the Faraday battery challenge to support the pioneering work needed to ensure that we can deliver our net zero commitments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be consulting later this year on new measures to help to build a circular economy at home, while driving international collaboration abroad to encourage harmonisation in the circular economy regulations. These efforts will put us at the forefront of future green growth.
The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the importance of resilient supply chains, and that is why the Government are monitoring and assessing the supply of critical materials. The Department for International Trade global supply chain directorate now forms a key part of this work. It will help to ensure access to a resilient critical material supply that adheres to free, fair and open international trade. This will help to advance the plan for growth and our levelling up objectives as we seek to attract investment and boost important aspects of our future economy across all UK nations and regions.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are absolutely committed to exploring and developing lithium mining in the UK. We have backed Cornish Lithium and Geothermal Engineering, which are collaborating to build a zero-carbon lithium extraction pipe plant at an existing site in Cornwall. Such commitments provide a powerful stimulus to mobilise private investment, which plays such an important role in the UK economy.
Our foreign direct investment strategy is similarly focused on securing investment in the extraction and, crucially, processing of these commodities. We are working with overseas mining companies and host Governments to support and enable UK investment in the extraction, processing and refining of the raw materials required to deliver our ambitions. We are working to improve international mining conditions. We have implemented a number of programmes to tackle modern slavery in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including a programme in the DRC with the Carter Centre to improve transparency and governance in the mining sector, working with civil society.
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to respond to these points. I know we shall continue to discuss this critical supply chain in the months and years ahead, as we drive our net zero ambitions into action and delivery and we consider how to play this great game.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.